Now that both the 4th and 9th Circuits have ruled against Trump’s travel bans, the cases are on their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The most immediate questions are:
- Will the U.S. Supreme Court grant a writ of certiorari, accepting the two cases for review?
- Will the U.S. Supreme Court issue a highly unusual stay of the orders of the 9th and 4th Circuits while the appeal is briefed and argued?
- Will the Supreme Court expedite the Trump administration’s appeal, as the administration asked – and if so, how fast will the hearing and decision come?
“The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) gives the President broad powers to control the entry of aliens, and to take actions to protect the American public. But immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show. The President’s authority is subject to certain statutory and constitutional restraints.”
9th Circuit Court of Appeals Refuses to Reinstate Trump’s Travel Ban (Los Angeles Times, 6/12/17)
“The 9th Circuit said Trump’s revised executive order failed to justify a need for the ban and violated a 1965 federal immigration law that bars discrimination based on nationality….
“The 9th Circuit narrowed the injunction a bit to allow for internal studies of security measures but said the rest of Trump’s order could not be enforced.”
Trump Loses Travel Ban Ruling in Appeals Court (New York Times, 6/12/17)
“The two courts employed different reasoning to arrive at the same basic conclusion. The Fourth Circuit said the revised executive order violated the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion.
“The Ninth Circuit, by contrast, rested its conclusions on statutory grounds. It said Mr. Trump had exceeded the authority Congress had granted him in making national security judgments in the realm of immigration without adequate justification.”
The 9th Circuit, however, has now blocked the ban on statutory grounds, holding that Trump “exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress.”
“This alternative reasoning does not change the outcome of the case, but it does give the Supreme Court a narrower basis on which to rule if the justices decide to weigh in….
“The order, the court wrote, “does not provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Nor did it “reveal any threat or harm to warrant suspension” of, or dramatic cuts to, the refugee program…”
Muslim Ban 2.0: What Happens Next (National Immigrant Law Center, 6/9/17) Concise, clear summary of the procedural posture of the Supreme Court appeal.
Despite Trump’s Tough Talk on Travel Ban, Few Changes on Vetting (New York Times, 6/11/17)
“Mr. Trump’s lawyers have moved slowly in responding to legal challenges to the White House’s initial and revised travel bans. And immigration experts say the administration has not taken steps it could have — even while the latest ban is tied up in the courts — to achieve the restriction’s stated goal: to tighten the vetting of people trying to get into the United States.
“The result has been that almost halfway through his first year in office, Mr. Trump has made few changes to the way people enter the United States from the countries he has deemed the most dangerous, despite his frequent campaign promises to institute “extreme vetting.”
And in other news
Immigrant Entrepreneurs’ biggest challenge in Minnesota? Attracting native-born customers. (MinnPost, 6/12/17) Except for restaurants, white Minnesotans seem to avoid immigrant-owned businesses.
“One explanation is geographic. Immigrant-owned businesses are often concentrated in certain neighborhoods, which makes it inconvenient for many whites living outside those areas.”
Other explanations? Consumer preference for larger, chain stores, lack of marketing and promotion – and prejudice or fear of coming into the neighborhoods.
ICE Shuts Down Program for Asylum-Seekers (The Atlantic, 6/9/17)
“With the family case management program scheduled to close on June 20, more asylum-seekers and refugees face harsh conditions in detention centers.”
Dial One if Your Neighbor’s Gardener Looks Mexican (Foreign Policy, 6/8/17)
“Under Trump, government employees hired at ICE to do community outreach are now fielding phone calls from people trying to report immigrants.”
Federal Judge Calls a Critical Part of Texas ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Crackdown Unconstitutional (San Antonio Current, 6/9/17) The same judge will hear the challenge to the SB4 legislation – and his ruling on the ICE detainer issue in this separate case may signal his ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation. The San Antonio Current adds important detail to previous reporting.
ICE arrests dozens of undocumented Chaldeans from metro Detroit in weekend sweep (Detroit Free Press, 6/11/17) The Chaldean Christians face deportation back to Iraq, where fewer than 200,000 Christians live today – compared to 1.4 million in 2003.
“There are Chaldeans living in metro Detroit with unclear immigration statuses who came to U.S. decades ago.
“Some committed crimes when younger and have served time. Now, under President Donald Trump, the U.S. is cracking down and deporting them.”
A Brutal Expulsion in Guatemala Shows How Neoliberalism Gets Greenwashed (The Nation, 6/8/17)
targeted for being environmentalists. Other times, they are targeted in the name of environmentalism. A report from Mexico brings worrisome news: Last week, on June 2, the Guatemalan military and National Police drove 700 Guatemalans from the Petén community of Laguna Larga, a majority of them women, children, and older people, out of their homes into the Mexican state of Campeche. The objective of the eviction was to clear people off nature-reserve lands, though other interests were at play. The refugees had to work their way through the lowland jungle in the rainy season, apparently pursued by a military helicopter….ometimes indigenous and rural activists in Central America are
“advance guard of the US deportation regime.”In Mexico last week, the Guatemalans were provided aid by local officials and by the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. But they were also harassed by Mexico’s immigration interdiction agency, the Instituto Nacional de Migración, which basically acts as the
TSA Whistleblower Alleges Racial Profiling Against Somali-Americans (Reveal, 6/5/17)
“The agency’s top official in Minneapolis, Cliff Van Leuven, told his deputy David McMahon that Rhoades was “going native” when, in 2014, he visited imams at a local mosque, the complaint says. The term “going native” suggests that Rhoades’ supervisors thought he was overly sympathetic to the Somali religious leaders, Rhoades said.
“Both officials have denied that comment or retaliation by reassigning him to a post in Florida.
“Van Leuven’s former executive assistant, Marcey Grabenbauer, confirmed in an interview hearing the two top officials make those and other disparaging comments.”