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 - May 3, 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 May 3, 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.
Next Monday, the Fourth Circuit will review a legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s March 6 executive order seeking to temporarily suspend entry into the United States from six Middle Eastern and African countries, among other provisions.
Today, we will look at that executive order and trace its path from conception to the court.
The executive order
What did Trump’s March 6 executive order seek to do?
On March 6, 2017, Trump issued the immigration executive order, Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States, to rescind and replace his January 27 executive order of the same name which had been successfully challenged in court.
This executive order suspended entry into the United States for 90 days for individuals from Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The order also suspended refugee admissions to the United States for 120 days while the admissions process was reviewed for additional national security measures to be implemented.
The order was set to go into effect on March 16, 2017.
How did the two executive orders differ?
After the January 27 executive order was blocked nationwide following court battles up to the Ninth Circuit, Trump discussed how his team was approaching revising the executive order during a press conference in February.
“As far as the new order, the new order is going to be very much tailored to what I consider to be a very bad decision, but we can tailor the order to that decision and get just about everything, in some ways more,” Trump said.
Differences between the January 27 and March 6 executive orders include:
- Removing Iraq from the list of countries subject to the entry suspension;
- Specifying that current visa holders were not affected;
- Removing the indefinite suspension on admitting Syrian refugees; and
- Allowing entry for refugees who had already been granted asylum.
Why was the March 6 executive order challenged?
Several lawsuits were filed across the country challenging the constitutionality and legality of the March 6 executive order. Plaintiffs included the states of California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit that will be heard before the Fourth Circuit next week on behalf of the International Refugee Assistance Project and other plaintiffs. Originally, the ACLU asked a federal district court in Maryland to block the January 27 order. It filed an amended complaint on March 10 asking the court to block the March 6 order in its entirety.
The ACLU argued that the March 6 order amounted to religious discrimination and violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Refugee Act of 1980, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
How did the federal district court rule?
On March 16, federal judge Theodore Chuang, an Obama appointee, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against the portion of the executive order that would have prevented Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen nationals from receiving visas. Chuang highlighted public statements made by Trump to demonstrate that there was evidence of religious purpose in suspending travel from these countries.
“These statements, which include explicit, direct statements of President Trump's animus towards Muslims and intention to impose a ban on Muslims entering the United States, present a convincing case that the First Executive Order was issued to accomplish, as nearly as possible, President Trump's promised Muslim ban,” Chuang wrote.
He declined to grant a preliminary injunction against the portion of the executive order that would have temporarily banned refugee admission for 120 days.
The U.S. Department of Justice appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit.
The Fourth Circuit: what comes next
What is the Fourth Circuit?
Established in 1891, the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, often referred to as the Fourth Circuit, is one of the thirteen federal appellate courts. It has appellate jurisdiction over cases originating from any of the district courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Rulings of the court are petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States for appeal.
Who sits on the Fourth Circuit?
There are 15 active judges on the Fourth Circuit appointed by five presidents: Ronald Reagan (R), George H.W. Bush (R), Bill Clinton (D), George W. Bush (R), and Barack Obama (D).
- Steven Agee (W. Bush)
- Albert Diaz (Obama)
- Allyson Duncan (W. Bush)
- Henry Floyd (Obama)
- Roger Gregory (Clinton)
- Pamela A. Harris (Obama)
- Barbara Keenan (Obama)
- Robert King (Clinton)
- Diana Motz (Clinton)
- Paul Niemeyer (H.W. Bush)
- Dennis Shedd (W. Bush)
- Stephanie Thacker (Obama)
- William Traxler (Clinton)
- Harvie Wilkinson (Reagan)
- James Wynn (Obama)
Who will hear the case?
Typically, in federal appellate courts, a randomly assigned three-judge panel will consider a case before it reaches the full bench on appeal. On April 10, however, the Fourth Circuit announced that its full bench of 15 judges would hear oral arguments in the first instance on May 8. This decision to hold a hearing en banc first could have the effect of expediting the case’s review.
Where can you hear the oral arguments?
In a first for the court, the Fourth Circuit has granted permission to C-SPAN to broadcast the audio of the oral arguments live. For instructions on how to listen in, read the court’s public advisory on real-time audio.
What comes next?
If the Fourth Circuit upholds the injunction, the Department of Justice can appeal the matter to the Supreme Court. They also face oral arguments in another case in the Ninth Circuit the following week on May 15. That appeal involves not only an injunction against the suspension of travel from the covered countries by foreign nationals, but also the suspension of refugee admissions.
Read more about Trump’s March 6 executive order on immigration.
See also
- You're Hired: Tracking the Trump Administration Transition
- Donald Trump presidential transition team
| |||||||||||||||||||
