Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
You're Hired: Tracking the Trump Administration Transition - February 6, 2017
Trump Administration (first term)  Vice President Mike Pence Cabinet • White House staff • Transition team • Trump's second term |
Domestic affairs: Abortion • Crime and justice • Education • Energy and the environment • Federal courts • Firearms policy • First Amendment • Healthcare • Immigration • Infrastructure • LGBTQ issues • Marijuana • Puerto Rico • Social welfare programs • Veterans • Voting issues Economic affairs and regulations: Agriculture and food policy • Budget • Financial regulation • Jobs • Social Security • Taxes • Trade Foreign affairs and national security: Afghanistan • Arab states of the Persian Gulf • China • Cuba • Iran • Iran nuclear deal • Islamic State and terrorism • Israel and Palestine • Latin America • Military • NATO • North Korea • Puerto Rico • Russia • Syria • Syrian refugees • Technology, privacy, and cybersecurity |
| Polling indexes: Opinion polling during the Trump administration |
This is the February 6, 2017, edition of an email sent from November 2016 to September 2017 that covered Donald Trump's presidential transition, cabinet appointees, and the different policy positions of those individuals who may have had an effect on the new administration. Previous editions of "You're Hired" can be found here.
The status of Executive Order 13769
One of the many executive orders signed in President Trump’s first two weeks in office has been under legal challenges across the country, and on Friday Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order suspending enforcement of the executive order nationwide. In today’s edition, we cover what the Trump order on immigration is, how it has been challenged, and what to expect as the lawsuits continue.
See also: Donald Trump’s immigration executive order issued January 27, 2017
The order
On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13769, “Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States.” The order was wide-reaching and had three major implications for immigration policy:
- A 90-day suspension of entry to the United States for travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
- A 120-day moratorium on all refugee admissions to the United States
- An indefinite suspension of refugee admission to the United States from Syria
Supporters of the action say that it is about pausing to re-evaluate the vetting process for immigration. They also cite the traditionally broad powers of the executive branch in setting immigration policy. However, opponents assert that the executive order is, in effect, a Muslim ban, as it applies to seven majority-Muslim countries and gives an exception to religious minorities within those countries. These seven countries were chosen because they were initially listed as countries of concern by the Obama administration in December 2015.
After a mass shooting in San Bernadino, California in December 2015, Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” This statement, along with others in the news, forms some of the basis for the legal challenge that the order was intended to disfavor Islam.
Legal challenge
The main legal challenge to the order came from the attorneys general of Minnesota and the state of Washington. The suit alleged that Trump’s executive order was “separating Washington families, harming thousands of Washington residents, damaging Washington's economy, hurting Washington-based companies, and undermining Washington's sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming place for immigrants and refugees.”
The state of Washington’s lawsuit lists nine causes of action, three of which challenge the order’s constitutionality. These three challenges are:
- That the executive order “was motivated by animus and a desire to harm a particular group” and therefore violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
- “Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, together with statements made by Defendants concerning their intent and application, are intended to disfavor Islam and favor Christianity.” This portion of the lawsuit claims the executive order violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
- That the order denies the Fifth Amendment right to due process, which is “applicable to arriving and present non-citizens.”
Friday’s ruling
On Friday, the state of Washington’s request for a temporary restraining order against the executive action was heard in the U.S. District Court of Western Washington. A temporary restraining order is when a court commands that a case retain a certain status until further action is taken. For one to be granted in this case, the state had to show that people in Washington and Minnesota would suffer irreparable harm if the ban continued.
Judge James Robart questioned representatives of the state and the Department of Justice. Robart granted the temporary restraining order on a nationwide basis, meaning that many of the key provisions of the executive order (including the three above) were suspended until the full case could be heard.
The Department of Justice appealed and asked for an immediate reversal of Robart’s decision. On Sunday morning, that appeal for immediate reinstatement of the travel ban was denied. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is now weighing whether to lift the temporary restraining order, and the Department of Justice has until 6pm Eastern Time to file legal papers. The three judges deciding whether to lift the restraining order are William Canby Jr., Michelle Friedland, and Richard Clifton.
What to expect going forward
The most immediate decision will come within the next day or two, according to most legal experts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to decide on the temporary restraining order quickly.
There are a number of ongoing legal challenges to the order in federal courts across the country. It is unclear how many of these lawsuits will go forward in the appeals process. ACLU lawyer Lee Gerlent, who is arguing a case against the ban based in New York, told Politico this morning that many legal challenges were likely to consolidate in the coming weeks, saying, “At some point, it may end up that there’s only a couple of cases, one or two in the appeals courts. … But right now, everything’s too fluid.”
See also
- You're Hired: Tracking the Trump Administration Transition
- Donald Trump presidential transition team
| |||||||||||||||||||
