Donald Trump's immigration executive order issued March 6, 2017

This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.

Trump Administration (first term)

President Donald Trump
Vice President Mike Pence
Cabinet • White House staff • Transition team • Trump's second term

Policy positions
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

On March 6, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States, that rescinded and replaced his January 27 executive order of the same name. The order suspended for 90 days entry into the United States 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 process was reviewed for additional national security measures that could be implemented. The order was set to go into effect on March 16, 2017.

Differences from the January 27 order included 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.

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court partially lifted the injunction against the order and agreed to review the case. The court allowed the suspension on entry to the United States and on the admission of refugees to be enforced, except for individuals with a bona fide relationship with the United States. This would include, for example, those with a familial relationship to someone in the United States or someone with an offer of employment. The administration set the order to go into partial effect on June 29, 2017, at 8 p.m. Eastern time.^[1]^[2]

The travel restrictions for nationals of seven countries outlined in Section 2 of the executive order expired on September 24, 2017, and was replaced with new travel restrictions. The new restrictions were the result of the national security reviews the secretary of homeland security was directed to undertake by Section 2. The restrictions on refugees outlined in Section 6 of the order expired on October 24, 2017. Due to the expiration of the March 6 order and the issuing of a new executive order, the Supreme Court dismissed both cases against the March 6 order as moot.^[3]

See also: Federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020

Summary of the order

On March 6, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, rescinding his January 27 executive order of the same name. The stated purpose of the new order, outlined in Section 1, was to "protect citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals" and "improve the screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the USRAP [U.S. Refugee Admissions program]."^[4]

Section 1 also provided explanations of the provisions that had been included in the January 27 order. The order stated that the affected countries had "already been identified as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States" and that members of Congress had expressed concerns over the screening and vetting process for travel into the United States. Further, the order stated that once individuals from these countries have been admitted, it is difficult to remove them because "many of these countries typically delay issuing, or refuse to issue, travel documents." Regarding the refugee program, the order states that "[t]errorist groups have sought to infiltrate several nations through refugee programs."^[4]

Finally, Section 1 removed Iraq from the list of seven countries from which travel was suspended, leaving Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.^[4]

Suspension of foreign entry

Section 2 of the executive order directed the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Director of National Intelligence to determine which additional information, if any, is necessary from each foreign country to verify the identity of individuals seeking visas for admission into the United States. The order specified that certain information may be necessary for some countries, but not others.^[4]

A report on the findings should be submitted to the president within 20 days of the effective date of the order. The order specified that after the president received the report, the Secretary of State was to contact the foreign governments that do not supply the necessary information and request them to begin providing it within 50 days. If they did not, the president could prohibit nationals of these countries from entering the United States until the foreign governments complied.^[4]

Meanwhile, the order suspended for 90 days entry into the United States of individuals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The suspension was set to begin on the effective date of the order, subject to limitations, waivers, and exceptions established in sections 3 and 12.^[4]

More about the six countries
Iran has been labeled as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, while Sudan has carried the label since 1993. Libya, Somalia, and Yemen were labeled as countries of concern on February 18, 2016, as the Department of Homeland Security implemented the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. The act directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to determine additional countries that should be subject to travel restrictions under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) due to associations with terrorism. Since February 18, 2016, nationals of countries eligible for the VWP who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011, have been ineligible for travel to the United States under the VWP. Individuals who are dual nationals of a VWP country and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria are also ineligible for admission under the VWP. Following the executive order issued on March 6, 2017, nationals of these countries, excepting Iraq, were also prohibited from entering the United States for 90 days.^[5]^[6]

More about the six countries
Iran has been labeled as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, while Sudan has carried the label since 1993. Libya, Somalia, and Yemen were labeled as countries of concern on February 18, 2016, as the Department of Homeland Security implemented the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. The act directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to determine additional countries that should be subject to travel restrictions under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) due to associations with terrorism. Since February 18, 2016, nationals of countries eligible for the VWP who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011, have been ineligible for travel to the United States under the VWP. Individuals who are dual nationals of a VWP country and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria are also ineligible for admission under the VWP. Following the executive order issued on March 6, 2017, nationals of these countries, excepting Iraq were also prohibited from entering the United States for 90 days.^[5]^[7]

Scope and exceptions

Section 3 outlined the scope of section 2 and detailed some exceptions to the suspension of entry.

As described in Section 3, Section 2 applied to individuals residing outside of the United States who did not have a valid visa as of 5:00pm EST on January 27 or as of the effective date of this order.^[4]

Section 3 clarified that the suspension of entry outlined in Section 2 would not apply to the following individuals:^[4]

lawful permanent residents
foreign-born individuals legally admitted into the United States on or after the effective date of the order
individuals with documents other than visas that allow entry into the United States
dual nationals of the six designated countries traveling with passports from other countries
individuals with diplomatic, NATO, or UN visas
individuals who have been granted asylum, admitted as refugees, or offered other protection by the United States

Under Section 3, consular officers may issue visas to individuals from the designated countries on a case-by-case basis, as long as it's been demonstrated that denying entry would cause the individual undue hardship and that permitting entry would not threaten national security.^[4]

Suspension of refugee admissions

Section 6 of the executive order suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, beginning on the effective date of the order. Meanwhile, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Director of National Intelligence were directed to review the refugee admissions process and determine which additional measures could be taken to enhance the security of the program. The order also directed the secretaries and director to implement such measures.^[4]

The order clarified that this section did not apply to refugees already scheduled for transit to the United States. During the suspension of the program, the executive order still allowed refugees to be admitted on a case-by-case basis. After the new measures were implemented, individuals who were in the refugee admissions process at the time of suspension would be allowed to complete the process. Decisions on new refugee applications would be made only after the secretaries and director have determined that the new security measures are accurate. Once the program was resumed, refugees of minority religions in their home countries were to be given priority to the extent permitted by law.^[4]

The order also reduced the number of refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017 to the ceiling specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act—50,000 per year. Each fiscal year, the president may raise this limit if it is deemed necessary. Former President Barack Obama had previously established a limit of 110,000 refugees for admission in fiscal year 2017.^[4]^[8]

Enforcement

Section 12 outlined for federal agencies enforcement of the executive order. The secretaries of state and homeland security were ordered to consult with the appropriate entities on the implementation of the order. The secretaries were also ordered to consider claims of fear of persecution or torture for entry into the United States. Section 12 clarified that no nonimmigrant visas should be revoked, and that any individuals who had had their visas revoked were entitled to new travel documentation.

Other provisions

Section 4 of the executive order created a special review process for individuals from Iraq applying for legal entry into the United States.
Section 5 calls for a uniform screening process for all immigration programs to identify individuals attempting to fraudulently enter the United States to cause harm.
Section 8 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to expedite the completion of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for individuals traveling to the United States and to implement the system as soon as possible.
Section 9 suspends the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which allows certain repeat travelers to the United States to skip the step of the entry process that requires an in-person interview with a consular officer. Section 9 also orders an expansion of the Consular Fellows Program by hiring more consular officers, lengthening their service period, and offering language training.^[9]
Section 10 requires the Secretary of State to confirm that countries holding nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements with the United States are honoring those agreements. If they are not, the secretary is directed to adjust nonimmigrant visa treatment for the nationals of those countries to match their treatment of U.S. nationals.
Section 11 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to collect and publicly disseminate every 180 days information on the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been involved with terrorism-related activity while in the country, the number of foreign nationals who have committed violence against women while in the country, and "any other information relevant to public safety and security" as determined by the secretary and Attorney General.
Section 13 revoked the executive order issued on January 27, 2017.

Q&A memo from DHS

On March 6, 2017—the same day the executive order was issued—the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a memo with clarifying questions and answers about the executive order.

According to the memo, individuals in transit to the United States with a valid visa would still be permitted to enter upon approval of a customs officer, a normal part of the process. Individuals from one of the six countries, a valid visa, and with no prior travel to the United States would also be permitted to seek entry. In addition, individuals from one of the six affected countries with a valid multiple entry visa would be allowed to leave the United States and re-enter.

No issued visas would be revoked due to the executive order. Individuals from the effective countries whose visas expire while the order is in effect may renew their visas and remain in the country. Green Card holders are not affected by the executive order.

The memo also stated that individuals who have already been granted asylum or refugee resettlement in the United States would be allowed to travel as normal. Only refugees who have already formally scheduled travel to the United States would still be allowed to seek resettlement in the country.

According to the memo, waivers may be granted on a case-by-case basis to individuals who demonstrate that their entry is in the national interest, would not pose a threat to national security, and that denial of such would cause undue harm. The memo clarifies that the executive order applies to both nationals and citizens of the six affected countries.

Timeline of actions related to the order

June 29, 2017: The executive order goes into partial effect at 8 p.m. Eastern time.^[2]
June 26, 2017: The U.S. Supreme Court issues a per curiam opinion partially lifts the injunction against the order and agrees to review the rulings from the Fourth and Ninth Circuits. The court allows the suspension on entry to the United States and on the admission of refugees to be enforced, except for individuals with a bona fide relationship with the United States. The court put the consolidated cases on its argument schedule for October 2017.^[1]
June 14, 2017: President Donald Trump (R) issues a presidential memorandum delaying the effective date of the executive order to 72 hours after the injunctions blocking the order are lifted.^[10]
June 12, 2017: A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds an injunction against the order issued by Judge Derrick Watson, ruling that President Trump did not demonstrate that the entry of the classes of people impacted by the order would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."^[11]
June 1, 2017: The Department of Justice submits a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the court to review the ruling of the Fourth Circuit.^[12]
May 25, 2017: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the injunction against the order issued by Judge Chuang, ruling that the motivation of the executive order was religious in nature and therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment.^[13]
May 15, 2017: The Ninth Circuit hears oral arguments in a challenge filed by the state of Hawaii.
May 8, 2017: The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral arguments in a challenge filed by the ACLU of Maryland.
April 12, 2017: Affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union file 13 separate lawsuits for access to records related to the implementation of the January 27 and March 6 executive orders.^[14]^[15]
March 30, 2017: The U.S. Department of Justice files an appeal of Watson's decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.^[16]
March 30, 2017: U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson converts the temporary restraining order he issued against two sections of the executive order into an indefinite preliminary injunction.^[17]
March 24, 2017: Federal judge Anthony Trenga upholds President Trump's authority to issue the March 6 executive order, finding that it was different enough from the January 27 order that it was "no longer likely that Plaintiffs can succeed on their claim" that the order was discriminatory.^[18]
March 22, 2017: The Justice Department requests that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals expedite its review of the March 6 executive order that federal judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland blocked on March 16.^[19]
March 16, 2017: Federal judge Theodore Chuang blocks the portion of the executive order that would have prevented Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen nationals from receiving visas.^[20]
March 15, 2017: U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson blocks implementation of the executive order with a nationwide temporary restraining order.^[21]
March 10, 2017: The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland filed a legal complaint in federal district court against the March 6 executive order.^[22]^[23]

March 7, 2017: Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin files a lawsuit against the executive order in federal district court, asking the judge to uphold the restraining order imposed on the previous executive order and apply it to the new one.^[24]
March 6, 2017: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issues a Q&A memo with clarifying guidance on the order.^[25]
March 6, 2017: President Donald Trump issues an executive order rescinding and replacing the executive order issued on January 27, 2017.

Lawsuits related to the order

Lawsuit from the state of Hawaii

See also: Trump v. Hawaii

On March 7, 2017, Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin filed a lawsuit against the executive order in federal district court. Chin asked a federal judge to uphold the restraining order imposed on the previous executive order and apply it to the new one. The official complaint argued that the new executive order is also illegal because it would harm Muslim residents of Hawaii, the state's educational institutions, and its economy. The previous executive order faced a lawsuit that made similar arguments, filed primarily by attorneys general from Washington and Minnesota, and supported by 16 other Democratic attorneys general.^[24]

On March 15, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson blocked implementation of the order with a nationwide temporary restraining order. Watson wrote, "It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam ... Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not." On March 30, Watson granted Hawaii's request to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction, writing that the plaintiffs "met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success" on their claims. The injunction extended indefinitely the block against federal implementation of Section 2 and Section 6 of the executive order while the case worked its way through the courts.^[21]^[17]

Appeal to the Ninth Circuit

Later on March 30, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal of Watson's decision in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held before a three-judge panel of the court on May 15, 2017. At oral arguments, the federal government argued that the president has broad authority under immigration law to regulate the entry of non-citizens into the United States. Hawaii countered that the president's authority was not so broad as to allow him to issue an order that would take a "magic eraser to the entire" body of immigration law. In their questioning, the panel examined how much consideration, if any, the court should give President Trump's statements he made as a candidate when evaluating the merits of the order.^[16]^[26]^[27]

The Ninth Circuit issued its ruling on June 12, upholding the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Watson. The panel found that in issuing the executive order, President Trump exceeded the president's broad authority over immigration. President Trump did not "make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States,'" the court wrote. The court found that the executive order also violated provisions of the law that prohibit nationality-based discrimination and that President Trump did not follow the process outlined in federal law for setting a limit on the admission of refugees.^[28]

Appeal to Supreme Court

On June 26, 2017, in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court partially lifted the injunction and agreed to review the case. Oral arguments were set for October 2017. In its opinion, the court allowed enforcement of the executive order except in cases in which the individual has a bona fide relationship to the United States. This could be in the form of a familial relationship with someone legally present in the country or a job offer from an employer.

The court announced that the case would be heard in October 2017. In its opinion, the court directed the parties involved to address the following question during oral arguments: "Whether the challenges to §2(c) [the suspension of entry] became moot on June 14, 2017."^[1]

On September 25, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court removed oral arguments in this case from the court's calendar and asked the parties involved to file briefs addressing whether or not the case is moot in light of the expiration of Section 2 of the order—the suspension of entry for nationals of seven countries—on September 24, 2017. On October 5, the Trump administration filed a brief arguing that the case is moot because new travel restrictions issued on September 24 are "not substantially similar" to the challenged executive order. Hawaii submitted a brief on October 5 arguing that the case was not moot because the provision suspending entry for refugees was still in effect and because the administration had "previously informed this Court that the President is free to revise" the temporary nature of the order at any time.^[29]^[30]^[31]

Lawsuit from the ACLU

See also: Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project

Complaint

On March 10, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland filed an amended legal complaint in federal district court against the March 6 executive order. The ACLU of Maryland had originally asked the court to block the January 27 order, and the amended complaint asked the court to block the March 6 order in its entirety instead. 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.^[22]^[23]

Preliminary injunction

On March 16, federal judge Theodore Chuang 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.^[20]^[32]

Fourth Circuit appeal

The U.S. Department of Justice appealed the case to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 10, 2017, the court announced that its full bench of 15 judges would hear oral arguments in the case on May 8, 2017. Typically, in federal appellate courts, a three-judge panel will consider a case before the full bench does. The decision to hold a hearing before the full bench could have the effect of speeding up a resolution to the case.^[26]

On April 19, 2017, the attorneys general of 16 states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief with the Fourth Circuit in support of the injunction. The brief argued that the purpose of the executive order was "to implement as nearly as possible the Muslim-travel ban that President Trump promised as a candidate." The brief also stated that all the joining parties would be adversely impacted by the order and would suffer irreparable harm should it go into effect. The following states joined the amicus brief:^[33]

Maine
Virginia
Maryland
California
Oregon
Connecticut
New York
Delaware
North Carolina
Illinois
Rhode Island
Iowa
Vermont
Washington
Massachusetts
New Mexico
District of Columbia

Arguments

During arguments, the judges focused questioning on whether the ban was a neutrally applied exercise of presidential authority over border security or whether President Trump's statements made as a candidate provided evidence of animus towards Muslims that rendered his order discriminatorily and illegally applied to Muslims. Another issue raised during oral argument was whether the plaintiffs in the case had standing to challenge the order as applied to them. If the court determines that the plaintiffs' standing is unclear, the circuit court may return the case to Judge Chuang to conduct fact-finding on the standing question.^[34]

You can listen to the audio from oral argument before the Fourth Circuit here:

Ruling

On May 25, 2017, the Fourth Circuit upheld the district court's injunction that blocked 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."^[13]

“	These statements, taken together, provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated both EO-1 and EO-2: President Trump’s desire to exclude Muslims from the United States. The statements also reveal President Trump’s intended means of effectuating the ban: by targeting majority-Muslim nations instead of Muslims explicitly. ... We do not discount that there may be a national security concern motivating EO-2; we merely find it likely that any such purpose is secondary to EO-2’s religious purpose. EO-2 cannot be divorced from the cohesive narrative linking it to the animus that inspired it. In light of this, we find that the reasonable observer would likely conclude that EO-2's primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs.^[35]	”
—U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals^[13]

The court concluded that the motivation for the executive order was religious in nature and that the order therefore violated the Constitution's Establishment Clause. The court ruled that the district court was correct in issuing its injunction.^[13]

Appeal to the Supreme Court

On June 1, 2017, the Department of Justice submitted a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the court to review the ruling of the Fourth Circuit. The department argued that the precedent set by the ruling for judicial review of executive decisions regarding immigration and national security was worth a review by the justices. The petition also asked the court to make a decision before their summer recess on whether or not to review the ruling and to stay the two injunctions on the order in the meantime.^[12]

On Friday, June 2, the Supreme Court asked the group challenging the executive order to submit a response to the DOJ’s appeal by June 12.^[36]

On June 26, 2017, in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court partially lifted the injunction and agreed to review the case. Oral arguments were set for October 2017. In its opinion, the court allowed enforcement of the executive order except in cases in which the individual has a bona fide relationship to the United States. This could be in the form of a familial relationship with someone legally present in the country or a job offer from an employer.

The court announced that the case would be heard in October 2017. In its opinion, the court directed the parties involved to address the following question during oral arguments: "Whether the challenges to §2(c) [the suspension of entry] became moot on June 14, 2017."^[1]

On September 25, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court removed oral arguments in this case from the court's calendar and asked the parties involved to file briefs addressing whether or not the case is moot in light of the expiration of Section 2 of the order—the suspension of entry for nationals of seven countries—on September 24, 2017. On October 5, the Trump administration filed a brief arguing that the case is moot because new travel restrictions issued on September 24 are "not substantially similar" to the challenged executive order. The ACLU's brief argued that the case is not moot because the former temporary travel restrictions have "now been converted into an indefinite ban."^[29]^[30]

On October 10, 2017, the U.S. Supreme 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.^[37]

See also: Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project

Lawsuit from the state of Washington

On March 9, 2017, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) filed a motion asking a federal judge to extend an existing injunction against the January 27 order to the new executive order. Ferguson said that while the ban was narrowed, it did not clear itself of constitutional problems. Ferguson announced that attorneys general from New York and Oregon would be joining in his effort to enforce the injunction against the new order. By March 30, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and California had joined the lawsuit.^[38]^[39]

Ferguson previously led the lawsuit against the initial executive order along with Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson; that lawsuit led to the temporary restraining order issued by federal district Judge James Robart.^[38]

Lawsuit from CAIR activists

On March 24, federal judge Anthony Trenga in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against the March 6 executive order. The motion had been filed by activists affiliated with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The activists had argued that President Trump exceeded his authority in issuing the executive order and that the order caused them personal injury. They also argued that the order amounted to discrimination against Muslims and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by restricting entry based on nationality.^[40]

Trenga found that it fell within President Trump's authority to issue the March 6 executive order. In his opinion, Trenga wrote that the order was different enough from the January 27 order that it was "no longer likely that Plaintiffs can succeed on their claims" that the order was discriminatory. The activists stated their intent to appeal the decision.^[40]^[41]

ACLU FOIA lawsuit

On April 12, 2017, affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union filed 13 separate lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act for access to records related to the implementation of President Donald Trump's January 27 and March 6 executive orders. The ACLU said it first requested the records on February 2 and filed the lawsuits because "the government has failed to substantively respond."^[42]

The January 27 executive order suspended travel into the United States by nationals of seven countries and all refugee admissions. The immediate impact of the order was described by the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as follows:^[43]

“	The impact of the Executive Order was immediate and widespread. It was reported that thousands of visas were immediately canceled, hundreds of travelers with such visas were prevented from boarding airplanes bound for the United States or denied entry on arrival, and some travelers were detained.^[35]	”
—U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The March 6 order rescinded and replaced that order, suspending travel from six countries and all refugee admissions. The lawsuits primarily sought records related how the January 27 order was implemented by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol at international airports and ports of entry, as well as relevant records regarding the March 6 order.

Analysis of SCOTUS partial stay

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued an order partially lifting the preliminary injunctions, allowing the suspension of entry into the United States and of the refugee program to be enforced. Individuals with a bona fide relationship to the United States, such as a familial relationship with a citizen or an offer of employment, were exempt. Following the order, legal analysts, immigration advocacy groups, and journalists examined its potential impact, the weight given by SCOTUS to the national security privileges of the Executive Branch, and how SCOTUS might rule on the executive order in the future.

On the order's potential impact

Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project: "Practically, in terms of who can enter the country, if the government follows the express language of the decision—which is an open question—the impact should be limited. ... It would have to be someone seeking a tourist visa from one of the six countries, who knows no one in the U.S., and who has no reason to be in the U.S. except for vacation."^[44]
Margaret Huang, executive director of Amnesty International USA: "Reinstating any part of this ban could create chaos in the nation's airports and tear families apart. Rather than keeping anyone safe, this ban demonizes millions of innocent people and creates anxiety and instability for people who want to visit a relative, work, study, return to the country they call home, or just travel without fear."^[45]
Leon Fresco, former deputy assistant attorney general for the office of immigration litigation, as cited in The Washington Post: "Leon Fresco ... said the limited travel ban seems to affect two types of people who don't necessarily have ties to the United States: those seeking U.S. visas as visitors and those trying to get visas through a government lottery meant for people from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States."^[46]
Dara Lind of Vox: "The biggest unsettled question, though, is what the impact will be on refugees. ... Refugees ... have a relationship with a US-based organization: US-based 'refugee resettlement agencies.' ... The Supreme Court didn’t clarify whether simply being a client of a resettlement agency counts as a 'bona fide' relationship."^[47]
Issie Lapowsky of Wired: "The 'bona fide' relationship does not apply to non-profits and the refugees they represent. In fact, it stipulates that organizations that represent refugees and immigrants can’t merely add people to their client list to secure their admission to the US. Noorani says that means the decision more or less turns the larger travel ban into a de facto refugee ban."^[48]

On the weight given to national security privileges

President Donald Trump (R): "Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective."^[49]
David French of National Review: "For now, the constitutional and statutory primacy of the executive and legislative branches over national security and immigration has been restored."^[50]
Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern of Slate: "The decision itself is confusing and ambiguous. That's because the court ruled only on the injunction and thus dodged the central issue: the legality of the order and the president's authority to pass it."^[51]
Jonathan Swan of Axios: "The Supreme Court justices were far more respectful of his executive authorities than the lower courts. And we can already see from their dissenting opinion that three of the Supreme Court justices — Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito — are inclined to support Trump's full travel ban."^[52]
Michael D. Shear of The New York Times: "In saying they would take the case, the justices partly endorsed the administration's view that the president has vast authority to control who crosses the boarder. ... But the opinion also signaled that some of the justices might believe that Mr. Trump exceeded even that broad authority when he twice sought to impose a blanket ban on entry to the United States from certain predominantly Muslim countries.^[53]
Josh Gerstein of Politico: "Despite Trump's quick claim of a 'clear victory for national security,' the justices may have handed the president more of a rhetorical victory than a practical one — at least for the time being. ... Trump's travel ban had already been substantially narrowed from an initial version. ... On Monday, the Supreme Court limited the rules' application even more.^[54]

On how SCOTUS might rule

David Cole, legal director of the ACLU: "We are disappointed that the Court is allowing any aspect of the Muslim ban to take effect, but what’s important to recognize is that the Court adopted a kind of middle-ground position that does not indicate its views on this one way or the other. ... They did not grant what the government requested, which was a lifting of the entire injunction. They didn't grant what we requested, which was a denial of any stay. They took a course that no one suggested."^[44]
Andrew McCarthy of National Review: "There would be no reason for the Supreme Court to narrow the lower-court stays of the travel ban if the justices were of a mind to concur in the lower courts' reasoning. ... It seems likely after today that a majority of the justices would resolve that issue in the president's favor."^[55]
Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow at the Cato Institute: "The side that gets a stay from the Supreme Court generally ends up winning on the merits."^[54]
Ed Kilgore of New York Magazine: "The decision was only 'unanimous' with respect to a narrowing of the lower-court injunctions against implementation of the travel ban. And the narrowing was marginal. ... Even that largely technical 'victory' for the administration is tentative: the Court could ultimately decide the lower courts were correct in voiding the whole exercise on either constitutional or statutory grounds.^[56]
Marty Lederman of Just Security: "The Court nominally granted certiorari in the two 'travel ban' cases today, but ... that's likely to have very little, if any, legal significance, because the case will almost certainly be mooted out by the time oral argument rolls around. ... For one thing, the 90-day entry ban ... will expire by its terms on September 27. Moreover, as the Court explains, by October the Section 2 'internal review' should be completed. I will therefore be very surprised if the Court issues a merits opinion in these cases—indeed, it's very possible there won't be any oral argument."^[57]

Guidance on bona fide relationships

On Wednesday, June 29, 2017, the U.S. Department of State issued guidance to U.S. diplomatic posts on what the administration would consider a bona fide relationship. The Associated Press reported that bona fide relationships would be defined in the following way:^[58]

“	The State Department said the personal relationships would include a parent, spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the United States. It does not include other relationships such as grandparents, grandchildren, aunts and uncles. Business or professional links must be "formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course rather than for the purpose of evading" the ban. Journalists, students, workers or lecturers who have valid invitations or employment contracts in the U.S. would be exempt from the ban. The exemption does not apply to those who seek a relationship with an American business or educational institution purely for the purpose of avoiding the rules.^[35]	”
—The Associated Press^[58]

Challenge from Hawaii

On June 29, 2017, the state of Hawaii filed an emergency motion to clarify the definition of bona fide relationship. The emergency motion asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii to clarify that fiancés, grandparents, grandchildren, and cousins of U.S. residents were considered as having a bona fide relationship with the United States. The motion also asked the court to clarify that refugees with a bona fide relationship are allowed to enter the United States and that the government may not presume that a foreign-born individual does not have a bona fide relationship with the United States.^[59]

The government responded that its definition of bona fide relationship came from the Immigration and Nationality Act.^[60]

On July 6, 2017, Judge Derrick Watson denied the emergency motion, writing that Hawaii should seek clarification directly from the United States Supreme Court. Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin stated that the ruling was procedural and not a final decision from the district court.^[61]

On July 13, 2017, District Court Judge Watson issued a ruling that individuals with bona fide relationships to the United States included grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and refugees. Watson's order included a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from including such persons in the executive order. The administration appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and also asked the United States Supreme Court to clarify the definition of bona fide relationship.^[62]^[63]

On July 19, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order declining to clarify the definition of bona fide relationship, letting stand Judge Watson's inclusion of grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins. However, the order put a hold on the part of Judge Watson's July 13 order that included refugees as having a bona fide relationship with the United States while the case is reviewed by the Ninth Circuit. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on August 28, 2017.^[64]^[65]

On September 7, 2017, the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the district court, ruling that grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins should be allowed to enter the country under the executive order. The opinion stated that "the government does not offer a persuasive explanation for why a mother-in-law is clearly a bona fide relationship" but that other types of familial relationships are not. The court also found that refugees who had been accepted by a resettlement agency should be allowed to enter.^[66]

On September 11, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the Ninth Circuit's decision with respect to refugees who had been accepted by a resettlement agency. This means that the administration was allowed to enforce the executive order against refugees.^[67]

Legal authority over immigration policy

Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212(f)

The federal government is responsible for setting and enforcing most immigration policy, particularly regarding who is admitted into the country. The executive branch, in particular, has wide authority over immigration policy. Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 granted the president of the United States the following authority:^[68]^[69]

“	Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.^[35]	”
—Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Section 212

This section of the law was specifically cited in the executive order to support the 90-day suspension of entry into the United States for individuals from Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. According to a report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), there appear to be few limits on executive authority under Section 212(f):^[70]

“	Neither the text of Section 212(f) nor the case law to date suggests any firm legal limits upon the President's exercise of his authority to exclude aliens under this provision. The central statutory constraint imposed on Section 212(f)'s exclusionary power is that the President must have found that the entry of any alien or class of aliens would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."^[35]	”
—Congressional Research Service

The CRS report further stated that while existing case law does not restrict the invocation of Section 212(f), future executive actions under the section could still be subject to legal challenges:^[71]

“	This silence [of the courts] could, however, be seen, in part, to reflect the arguably limited nature of the Executive's use of its Section 212(f) authority to date. ... In no case to date ... has the Executive purported to take certain types of action, such as barring all aliens from entering the United States for an extended period of time or explicitly distinguishing between categories of aliens based on their religion. Any such restrictions could potentially be seen to raise legal issues that were not raised by prior exclusions. For example, if the Executive were to seek to bar the entry of all aliens, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, for an extended time, questions could be raised about whether the President's action was consistent with Congress's intent.^[35]	”
—Congressional Research Service

Refugee Act of 1980

The Refugee Act of 1980, which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act, authorized the president to admit refugees who face "persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion," especially if it involves an "unforeseen emergency refugee situation." Although the Refugee Act limited the number of refugee admissions to 50,000 per year, the president may raise this limit before the start of the fiscal year. The president is required to seek appropriate consultation from the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of Representatives before raising the number of admitted refugees.^[72]^[73]^[74]

Comparisons to previous orders

In the executive order, President Trump specifically cited Section 212(f) to support the 90-day suspension of entry into the United States for individuals from Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The following is a list of selected instances in which previous presidents invoked Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to restrict the entry of certain groups of individuals into the United States. For a more complete list, see this report from the Congressional Research Service.

President Barack Obama invoked Section 212(f) on April 23, 2012, when he issued an executive order barring the entry of individuals involved in hacking for the purpose of assisting or enabling "serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of the Government of Iran or the Government of Syria." Read the order here.
President George Bush invoked Section 212(f) on February 22, 2002, when he issued a proclamation barring the entry of individuals from Zimbabwe who were involved in or benefited from "policies that undermine or injure Zimbabwe's democratic institutions," as well as those who benefited financially through business dealings from such policies. Read the proclamation here.
President Bill Clinton invoked Section 212(f) on May 7, 1994, when he issued a proclamation barring the entry of all Haitian military officers and individuals employed by the military, as well as "major participants in the coup d'état of 1991 and in the illegal governments since the coup d'état." Read the proclamation here.
President Ronald Reagan invoked Section 212(f) on August 22, 1986, when he issued a proclamation barring the entry of all immigrants from Cuba, with some exceptions, following Cuba's suspension of an immigration agreement with the United States. Read the proclamation here.
President Jimmy Carter did not invoke Section 212(f), but instead invoked Section 215(a) when he issued an order revoking immigrant and nonimmigrant visas that had been issued to Iranian citizens and prohibiting new visas from being issued to such individuals, except in certain circumstances. The order was issued in response to the Iranian terrorist takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Read Carter's statement about the order here.

The bar chart below displays the total number of orders invoking Section 212(f) issued by previous presidents, according to the Congressional Research Service.^[70]

Text of order

Below is the full text of the executive order issued by President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017:^[4]

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

“

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the Nation from terrorist activities by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals. The screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) play a crucial role in detecting foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism and in preventing those individuals from entering the United States. It is therefore the policy of the United States to improve the screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the USRAP.

(b) On January 27, 2017, to implement this policy, I issued Executive Order 13769 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States).

(i) Among other actions, Executive Order 13769 suspended for 90 days the entry of certain aliens from seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. These are countries that had already been identified as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States. Specifically, the suspension applied to countries referred to in, or designated under, section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), in which Congress restricted use of the Visa Waiver Program for nationals of, and aliens recently present in, (A) Iraq or Syria, (B) any country designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism (currently Iran, Syria, and Sudan), and (C) any other country designated as a country of concern by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence. In 2016, the Secretary of Homeland Security designated Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as additional countries of concern for travel purposes, based on consideration of three statutory factors related to terrorism and national security: "(I) whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States; (II) whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and (III) whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists." 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)(D)(ii). Additionally, Members of Congress have expressed concerns about screening and vetting procedures following recent terrorist attacks in this country and in Europe.

(ii) In ordering the temporary suspension of entry described in subsection (b)(i) of this section, I exercised my authority under Article II of the Constitution and under section 212(f) of the INA, which provides in relevant part: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). Under these authorities, I determined that, for a brief period of 90 days, while existing screening and vetting procedures were under review, the entry into the United States of certain aliens from the seven identified countries -- each afflicted by terrorism in a manner that compromised the ability of the United States to rely on normal decision-making procedures about travel to the United States -- would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. Nonetheless, I permitted the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant case-by-case waivers when they determined that it was in the national interest to do so.

(iii) Executive Order 13769 also suspended the USRAP for 120 days. Terrorist groups have sought to infiltrate several nations through refugee programs. Accordingly, I temporarily suspended the USRAP pending a review of our procedures for screening and vetting refugees. Nonetheless, I permitted the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to jointly grant case-by-case waivers when they determined that it was in the national interest to do so.

(iv) Executive Order 13769 did not provide a basis for discriminating for or against members of any particular religion. While that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion, and it applied to minority sects within a religion. That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities -- whoever they are and wherever they reside -- to avail themselves of the USRAP in light of their particular challenges and circumstances.

(c) The implementation of Executive Order 13769 has been delayed by litigation. Most significantly, enforcement of critical provisions of that order has been temporarily halted by court orders that apply nationwide and extend even to foreign nationals with no prior or substantial connection to the United States. On February 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to stay or narrow one such order pending the outcome of further judicial proceedings, while noting that the "political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions" about who should be covered by a suspension of entry or of refugee admissions.

(d) Nationals from the countries previously identified under section 217(a)(12) of the INA warrant additional scrutiny in connection with our immigration policies because the conditions in these countries present heightened threats. Each of these countries is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones. Any of these circumstances diminishes the foreign government's willingness or ability to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States. Moreover, the significant presence in each of these countries of terrorist organizations, their members, and others exposed to those organizations increases the chance that conditions will be exploited to enable terrorist operatives or sympathizers to travel to the United States. Finally, once foreign nationals from these countries are admitted to the United States, it is often difficult to remove them, because many of these countries typically delay issuing, or refuse to issue, travel documents.

(e) The following are brief descriptions, taken in part from the Department of State's Country Reports on Terrorism 2015 (June 2016), of some of the conditions in six of the previously designated countries that demonstrate why their nationals continue to present heightened risks to the security of the United States:

(i) Iran. Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984 and continues to support various terrorist groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, and terrorist groups in Iraq. Iran has also been linked to support for al-Qa'ida and has permitted al-Qa'ida to transport funds and fighters through Iran to Syria and South Asia. Iran does not cooperate with the United States in counterterrorism efforts.

(ii) Libya. Libya is an active combat zone, with hostilities between the internationally recognized government and its rivals. In many parts of the country, security and law enforcement functions are provided by armed militias rather than state institutions. Violent extremist groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), have exploited these conditions to expand their presence in the country. The Libyan government provides some cooperation with the United States' counterterrorism efforts, but it is unable to secure thousands of miles of its land and maritime borders, enabling the illicit flow of weapons, migrants, and foreign terrorist fighters. The United States Embassy in Libya suspended its operations in 2014.

(iii) Somalia. Portions of Somalia have been terrorist safe havens. Al-Shabaab, an al-Qa'ida-affiliated terrorist group, has operated in the country for years and continues to plan and mount operations within Somalia and in neighboring countries. Somalia has porous borders, and most countries do not recognize Somali identity documents. The Somali government cooperates with the United States in some counterterrorism operations but does not have the capacity to sustain military pressure on or to investigate suspected terrorists.

(iv) Sudan. Sudan has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1993 because of its support for international terrorist groups, including Hizballah and Hamas. Historically, Sudan provided safe havens for al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups to meet and train. Although Sudan's support to al-Qa'ida has ceased and it provides some cooperation with the United States' counterterrorism efforts, elements of core al-Qa'ida and ISIS-linked terrorist groups remain active in the country.

(v) Syria. Syria has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. The Syrian government is engaged in an ongoing military conflict against ISIS and others for control of portions of the country. At the same time, Syria continues to support other terrorist groups. It has allowed or encouraged extremists to pass through its territory to enter Iraq. ISIS continues to attract foreign fighters to Syria and to use its base in Syria to plot or encourage attacks around the globe, including in the United States. The United States Embassy in Syria suspended its operations in 2012. Syria does not cooperate with the United States' counterterrorism efforts.

(vi) Yemen. Yemen is the site of an ongoing conflict between the incumbent government and the Houthi-led opposition. Both ISIS and a second group, al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), have exploited this conflict to expand their presence in Yemen and to carry out hundreds of attacks. Weapons and other materials smuggled across Yemen's porous borders are used to finance AQAP and other terrorist activities. In 2015, the United States Embassy in Yemen suspended its operations, and embassy staff were relocated out of the country. Yemen has been supportive of, but has not been able to cooperate fully with, the United States in counterterrorism efforts.

(f) In light of the conditions in these six countries, until the assessment of current screening and vetting procedures required by section 2 of this order is completed, the risk of erroneously permitting entry of a national of one of these countries who intends to commit terrorist acts or otherwise harm the national security of the United States is unacceptably high. Accordingly, while that assessment is ongoing, I am imposing a temporary pause on the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers, as described in section 3 of this order.

(g) Iraq presents a special case. Portions of Iraq remain active combat zones. Since 2014, ISIS has had dominant influence over significant territory in northern and central Iraq. Although that influence has been significantly reduced due to the efforts and sacrifices of the Iraqi government and armed forces, working along with a United States-led coalition, the ongoing conflict has impacted the Iraqi government's capacity to secure its borders and to identify fraudulent travel documents. Nevertheless, the close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected Iraqi government, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of United States forces in Iraq, and Iraq's commitment to combat ISIS justify different treatment for Iraq. In particular, those Iraqi government forces that have fought to regain more than half of the territory previously dominated by ISIS have shown steadfast determination and earned enduring respect as they battle an armed group that is the common enemy of Iraq and the United States. In addition, since Executive Order 13769 was issued, the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal. Decisions about issuance of visas or granting admission to Iraqi nationals should be subjected to additional scrutiny to determine if applicants have connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations, or otherwise pose a risk to either national security or public safety.

(h) Recent history shows that some of those who have entered the United States through our immigration system have proved to be threats to our national security. Since 2001, hundreds of persons born abroad have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States. They have included not just persons who came here legally on visas but also individuals who first entered the country as refugees. For example, in January 2013, two Iraqi nationals admitted to the United States as refugees in 2009 were sentenced to 40 years and to life in prison, respectively, for multiple terrorism-related offenses. And in October 2014, a native of Somalia who had been brought to the United States as a child refugee and later became a naturalized United States citizen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction as part of a plot to detonate a bomb at a crowded Christmas-tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. The Attorney General has reported to me that more than 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(i) Given the foregoing, the entry into the United States of foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism remains a matter of grave concern. In light of the Ninth Circuit's observation that the political branches are better suited to determine the appropriate scope of any suspensions than are the courts, and in order to avoid spending additional time pursuing litigation, I am revoking Executive Order 13769 and replacing it with this order, which expressly excludes from the suspensions categories of aliens that have prompted judicial concerns and which clarifies or refines the approach to certain other issues or categories of affected aliens.

Sec. 2. Temporary Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern During Review Period. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall conduct a worldwide review to identify whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public-safety threat. The Secretary of Homeland Security may conclude that certain information is needed from particular countries even if it is not needed from every country.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the worldwide review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed from each country for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 20 days of the effective date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening and vetting of foreign nationals, to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists, and in light of the national security concerns referenced in section 1 of this order, I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the unrestricted entry into the United States of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that the entry into the United States of nationals of those six countries be suspended for 90 days from the effective date of this order, subject to the limitations, waivers, and exceptions set forth in sections 3 and 12 of this order.

(d) Upon submission of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed from each country for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request that all foreign governments that do not supply such information regarding their nationals begin providing it within 50 days of notification.

(e) After the period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of appropriate categories of foreign nationals of countries that have not provided the information requested until they do so or until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the country has an adequate plan to do so, or has adequately shared information through other means. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security may also submit to the President the names of additional countries for which any of them recommends other lawful restrictions or limitations deemed necessary for the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) At any point after the submission of the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment, as well as the names of any countries that they recommend should be removed from the scope of a proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section.

(g) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 60 days of the effective date of this order, a second report within 90 days of the effective date of this order, a third report within 120 days of the effective date of this order, and a fourth report within 150 days of the effective date of this order.

Sec. 3. Scope and Implementation of Suspension.

(a) Scope. Subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section and any waiver under subsection (c) of this section, the suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall apply only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:

(i) are outside the United States on the effective date of this order;

(ii) did not have a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., eastern standard time on January 27, 2017; and

(iii) do not have a valid visa on the effective date of this order.

(b) Exceptions. The suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall not apply to:

(i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;

(ii) any foreign national who is admitted to or paroled into the United States on or after the effective date of this order;

(iii) any foreign national who has a document other than a visa, valid on the effective date of this order or issued on any date thereafter, that permits him or her to travel to the United States and seek entry or admission, such as an advance parole document;

(iv) any dual national of a country designated under section 2 of this order when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country;

(v) any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic or diplomatic-type visa, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visa, C-2 visa for travel to the United Nations, or G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa; or

(vi) any foreign national who has been granted asylum; any refugee who has already been admitted to the United States; or any individual who has been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

(c) Waivers. Notwithstanding the suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order, a consular officer, or, as appropriate, the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Commissioner's delegee, may, in the consular officer's or the CBP official's discretion, decide on a case-by-case basis to authorize the issuance of a visa to, or to permit the entry of, a foreign national for whom entry is otherwise suspended if the foreign national has demonstrated to the officer's satisfaction that denying entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship, and that his or her entry would not pose a threat to national security and would be in the national interest. Unless otherwise specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, any waiver issued by a consular officer as part of the visa issuance process will be effective both for the issuance of a visa and any subsequent entry on that visa, but will leave all other requirements for admission or entry unchanged. Case-by-case waivers could be appropriate in circumstances such as the following:

(i) the foreign national has previously been admitted to the United States for a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity, is outside the United States on the effective date of this order, seeks to reenter the United States to resume that activity, and the denial of reentry during the suspension period would impair that activity;

(ii) the foreign national has previously established significant contacts with the United States but is outside the United States on the effective date of this order for work, study, or other lawful activity;

(iii) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States for significant business or professional obligations and the denial of entry during the suspension period would impair those obligations;

(iv) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States to visit or reside with a close family member (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent) who is a United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien lawfully admitted on a valid nonimmigrant visa, and the denial of entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship;

(v) the foreign national is an infant, a young child or adoptee, an individual needing urgent medical care, or someone whose entry is otherwise justified by the special circumstances of the case;

(vi) the foreign national has been employed by, or on behalf of, the United States Government (or is an eligible dependent of such an employee) and the employee can document that he or she has provided faithful and valuable service to the United States Government;

(vii) the foreign national is traveling for purposes related to an international organization designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), 22 U.S.C. 288 et seq., traveling for purposes of conducting meetings or business with the United States Government, or traveling to conduct business on behalf of an international organization not designated under the IOIA;

(viii) the foreign national is a landed Canadian immigrant who applies for a visa at a location within Canada; or

(ix) the foreign national is traveling as a United States Government-sponsored exchange visitor.

Sec. 4. Additional Inquiries Related to Nationals of Iraq. An application by any Iraqi national for a visa, admission, or other immigration benefit should be subjected to thorough review, including, as appropriate, consultation with a designee of the Secretary of Defense and use of the additional information that has been obtained in the context of the close U.S.-Iraqi security partnership, since Executive Order 13769 was issued, concerning individuals suspected of ties to ISIS or other terrorist organizations and individuals coming from territories controlled or formerly controlled by ISIS. Such review shall include consideration of whether the applicant has connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations or with territory that is or has been under the dominant influence of ISIS, as well as any other information bearing on whether the applicant may be a threat to commit acts of terrorism or otherwise threaten the national security or public safety of the United States.

Sec. 5. Implementing Uniform Screening and Vetting Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence shall implement a program, as part of the process for adjudications, to identify individuals who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry. This program shall include the development of a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that applicants are who they claim to be; a mechanism to assess whether applicants may commit, aid, or support any kind of violent, criminal, or terrorist acts after entering the United States; and any other appropriate means for ensuring the proper collection of all information necessary for a rigorous evaluation of all grounds of inadmissibility or grounds for the denial of other immigration benefits.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the program described in subsection (a) of this section within 60 days of the effective date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the effective date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the effective date of this order.

Sec. 6. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend travel of refugees into the United States under the USRAP, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall suspend decisions on applications for refugee status, for 120 days after the effective date of this order, subject to waivers pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication processes to determine what additional procedures should be used to ensure that individuals seeking admission as refugees do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. The suspension described in this subsection shall not apply to refugee applicants who, before the effective date of this order, have been formally scheduled for transit by the Department of State. The Secretary of State shall resume travel of refugees into the United States under the USRAP 120 days after the effective date of this order, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall resume making decisions on applications for refugee status only for stateless persons and nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that the additional procedures implemented pursuant to this subsection are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(b) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any entries in excess of that number until such time as I determine that additional entries would be in the national interest.

(c) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the entry of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States, including in circumstances such as the following: the individual's entry would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement or arrangement, or the denial of entry would cause undue hardship.

(d) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of State shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 7. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority permitted by section 212(d)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B), relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing directives or guidance.

Sec. 8. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry‑exit tracking system for in-scope travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive set forth in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the effective date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the effective date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the effective date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit further reports every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 9. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1202, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions. This suspension shall not apply to any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic or diplomatic-type visa, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visa, C-2 visa for travel to the United Nations, or G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa; traveling for purposes related to an international organization designated under the IOIA; or traveling for purposes of conducting meetings or business with the United States Government.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that nonimmigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 10. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements and arrangements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If another country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a truly reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by that foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 11. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people and to implement more effectively policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available the following information:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation with or provision of material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national-security-related reasons;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and who have engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States;

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called "honor killings," in the United States by foreign nationals; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall release the initial report under subsection (a) of this section within 180 days of the effective date of this order and shall include information for the period from September 11, 2001, until the date of the initial report. Subsequent reports shall be issued every 180 days thereafter and reflect the period since the previous report.

Sec. 12. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with appropriate domestic and international partners, including countries and organizations, to ensure efficient, effective, and appropriate implementation of the actions directed in this order.

(b) In implementing this order, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including, as appropriate, those providing an opportunity for individuals to claim a fear of persecution or torture, such as the credible fear determination for aliens covered by section 235(b)(1)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A).

(c) No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the effective date of this order shall be revoked pursuant to this order.

(d) Any individual whose visa was marked revoked or marked canceled as a result of Executive Order 13769 shall be entitled to a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to travel to the United States and seek entry. Any prior cancellation or revocation of a visa that was solely pursuant to Executive Order 13769 shall not be the basis of inadmissibility for any future determination about entry or admissibility.

(e) This order shall not apply to an individual who has been granted asylum, to a refugee who has already been admitted to the United States, or to an individual granted withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture, consistent with the laws of the United States.

Sec. 13. Revocation. Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, is revoked as of the effective date of this order.

Sec. 14. Effective Date. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on March 16, 2017.

Sec. 15. Severability. (a) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(b) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the lack of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements.

Sec. 16. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP^[35]

”

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Trump immigration executive order March 6. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Donald Trump's immigration executive order issued March 6, 2017 - Google News

Footnotes

[scotusjune-1] 1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 ^1.3 Supreme Court of the United States, Trump et al. v. International Refugee Assistance Project et al. and Trump et al. v. State of Hawaii et al., June 26, 2017

[vox8pm-2] 2.0 ^2.1 Vox, "Trump’s travel ban is going into effect tonight. Here’s what we know," June 29, 2017

[3] The Associated Press, "The Latest: US to resume refugee admissions," October 24, 2017

[mar6eo-4] 4.00 ^4.01 ^4.02 ^4.03 ^4.04 ^4.05 ^4.06 ^4.07 ^4.08 ^4.09 ^4.10 ^4.11 ^4.12 The White House, "Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," March 6, 2016

[vwprestrict-5] 5.0 ^5.1 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "DHS Announces Further Travel Restrictions for the Visa Waiver Program," February 18, 2016

[6] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, "Visa Waiver Program," accessed January 30, 2017

[7] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, "Visa Waiver Program," accessed January 30, 2017

[8] The White House, "Presidential Determination -- Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2017," September 28, 2016

[9] Immihelp, "US Visa Interview Waiver and Visa Renewal," accessed January 31, 2017

[10] USA Today, "In defensive move, Trump extends effective date of travel ban order," June 14, 2017

[11] The Los Angeles Times, "9th Circuit Court of Appeals refuses to reinstate Trump's travel ban," June 12, 2017

[lyldenlawnews-12] 12.0 ^12.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump - Petition for a Writ of Certiorari," accessed June 2, 2017

[4thopinion-13] 13.0 ^13.1 ^13.2 ^13.3 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named 4thopinion

[14] American Civil Liberties Union, "ACLU Files Lawsuits Demanding Local Documents on Implementation of Trump Muslim Ban," April 12, 2017

[15] American Civil Liberties Union, "ACLU CBP FOIA Lawsuits Regarding Muslim Ban Implementation," April 12, 2017

[appealhi-16] 16.0 ^16.1 United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, "Hawaii v. Trump - Notice of Appeal," March 30, 2017

[troextend-17] 17.0 ^17.1 CNN, "Trump travel ban: Read federal judge's latest ruling," March 30, 2017

[vaupheld-18] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named vaupheld

[19] Politico, "Trump administration moves to expedite travel ban appeal," March 22, 2017

[usatodaymd-20] 20.0 ^20.1 USA Today, "Trump travel ban dealt another blow by Maryland judge," March 16, 2017

[hawaiiblock-21] 21.0 ^21.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named hawaiiblock

[ACLUcomplaint-22] 22.0 ^22.1 American Civil Liberties Union, "International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump - Amended Complaint," accessed March 23, 2017

[ACLUsumm-23] 23.0 ^23.1 American Civil Liberties Union, "International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump," March 16, 2017

[thehillhawaii-24] 24.0 ^24.1 The Hill, "Hawaii files challenge to Trump's new travel order," March 8, 2017

[25] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States," March 6, 2017

[4thcircuitappeal-26] 26.0 ^26.1 Politico, "Full bench of 4th Circuit to hear Trump travel ban case in May," April 10, 2017

[27] SCOTUSblog, "Ninth Circuit hears oral argument on Trump travel ban," May 16, 2017

[9thcircuitjune12op-28] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named 9thcircuitjune12op

[scotusmoot-29] 29.0 ^29.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Order list - orders in pending cases, September 25, 2017

[nytbriefs-30] 30.0 ^30.1 The New York Times, "Trump Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss Travel Ban Cases," October 5, 2017

[31] Hogan Lovells US LLP, "Letter Brief Regarding Mootness," October 5, 2017

[32] United States District Court for the District of Maryland, "International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump," March 16, 2017

[33] Illinois Attorney General, "Brief Amicus Curiae of Virginia, Maryland, et al," April 19, 2017

[34] United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, "Listen to Oral Arguments," accessed May 8, 2017

[quotedisclaimer-35] 35.0 ^35.1 ^35.2 ^35.3 ^35.4 ^35.5 ^35.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

[36] NPR, "Trump Asks Supreme Court To Reinstate Travel Ban On 6 Majority-Muslim Nations," June 2, 2017

[37] Supreme Court of the United States, Trump et al. v. International Refugee Assistance Project et al. - Summary disposition - certiorari, October 10, 2017

[chictrib-38] 38.0 ^38.1 Chicago Tribune, "Legal challenges to Trump's travel ban mount as Washington moves to block executive order," March 9, 2017

[39] Politico, "Last-ditch legal efforts to stop Trump travel ban heat up," March 13, 2017

[trenga-40] 40.0 ^40.1 Politico, "Sarsour v. Trump," March 24, 2017

[41] Politico, "Virginia judge backs Trump on travel ban," March 24, 2017

[42] American Civil Liberties Union, "ACLU Files Lawsuits Demanding Local Documents on Implementation of Trump Muslim Ban," April 12, 2017

[43] United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "State of Washington v. Trump," February 9, 2017

[newyorker-44] 44.0 ^44.1 The New Yorker, "What the Supreme Court’s Travel Ban Ruling Means in Practice," June 26, 2017

[45] Amnesty International USA, "Congress Must Step in and Stop Muslim Ban," June 26, 2017

[46] The Washington Post, "Supreme Court allows limited version of Trump’s travel ban to take effect and will consider case in fall," June 26, 2017

[47] Vox, "Donald Trump’s travel ban is about to go into effect," June 26, 2017

[48] Wired, "Travel Ban Into a De Facto Refugee Ban," June 26, 2017

[49] BuzzFeed News, "Trump's Ban Against Travel From Six Muslim-Majority Countries And Refugees," June 26, 2017

[50] National Review, "Victory for Trump: SCOTUS Restores Vast Majority of Travel Ban," June 26, 2017

[51] Slate, "SCOTUS Splits the Travel Ban Baby," June 26, 2017

[52] Axios, "Trump's 'victory' on travel ban is far from 'clear'," June 26, 2017

[53] The New York Times, "Supreme Court Takes Up Travel Ban Case, and Allows Parts to Go Ahead," June 26, 2017

[politico-54] 54.0 ^54.1 Politico, "5 questions on the future of Trump's travel ban," June 26, 2017

[55] National Review, "The Supreme Court Order Is Not Much of a Victory for Trump," June 26, 2017

[56] New York Magazine, "Trump Prematurely Declares ‘Clear Victory’ on Travel Ban," June 26, 2017

[57] Just Security, "It's All About that Stay (and Its Surprising Limits)," June 26, 2017

[apguidance-58] 58.0 ^58.1 The Associated Press, "Less chaos expected as new travel ban takes effect," June 29, 2017

[59] Lawfare, "Hawaii Files Emergency Motion to Clarify Scope of Preliminary Injunction in Travel Ban Case," June 29, 2017

[60] Time, "Hawaii State Attorneys Say Including Grandmas in Trump's Travel Ban is ‘Preposterous’," July 5, 2017

[61] Hawaii News Now, "Federal judge turns back Hawaii's motion on Trump's travel ban," July 6, 2017

[62] Immigration Impact, "Hawaii Judge Rules That Grandparents and Other Close Relatives Are Excluded from the Travel Ban," July 17, 2017

[63] SCOTUSblog, "Motion for Clarification of June 26, 2017, Stay Ruling and Application for Temporary Administrative Stay of Modified Injunction," accessed July 17, 2017

[64] United States Supreme Court, "Order in Pending Case: Trump v. Hawaii," July 19, 2017

[65] Law360, "Gov't Gets Grilling On Family Ties In Travel Ban Appeal," August 28, 2017

[66] MSN, "Appeals court: Grandparents not part of Trump's travel ban," September 7, 2017

[67] Supreme Court of the United States, "Donald Trump, et al. v. Hawaii, et al," September 11, 2017

[fulltext1952-68] Government Publishing Office, "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952," accessed March 14, 2017

[69] Time, "What to Know About the 1952 Law Invoked by President Trump’s Immigration Order," February 6, 2017

[eoauthoritycrs-70] 70.0 ^70.1 Congressional Research Service, "Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief," January 23, 2017

[eoauthority-71] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named eoauthority

[refugeeact-72] U.S. Government Publishing Office, "Public Law 96-212," accessed November 17, 2015

[73] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "INA: ACT 207 - Annual Admission of Refugees and Admission of Emergency Situation Refugees," accessed December 19, 2016

[74] Oyez, "Arizona v. United States," accessed November 18, 2015

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]