Trump Administration Faces EO Setbacks in a Number of Courts


#1

Here is where we stand this morning.

lawfareblog.com/trump-administration-faces-eo-setbacks-two-courts

The situation is fluid. Basically in some jurisdictions the stay is to not allow any one specifically affected by the Executive Order to be returned, and at least one seems to order them to be admitted.

The stays are vague
The EO is also a bit vague


#2

Four stays have now been granted and the State of California has filed for injunctive relief. Read our updated post: tinyurl.com/zlj9gjh


#3

The stay granted by the judge only pertains to those who were already physically present in the United States, or in transit to the United States at the time the Executive Order was signed. It likewise only pertains to those with valid, legal visas. The Executive Order remains in force with respect to all would-be travelers and refugees from the seven program countries referenced in the Executive Order.

google.co.uk/amp/www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/28/federal-judge-grants-aclu-motion-places-limited-temporary-stay-on-refugee-executive-order/amp/?client=safari


#4

There are 4 stays so far:

The order, granted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, grants a stay of removal for two unnamed plaintiffs.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a temporary restraining order requiring the government to permit green card holders detained in Dulles International Airport access to counsel and forbidding the detainees from being removed from the United States for seven days.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has granted an emergency motion to stay the removal of immigrants and refugees detained and prevented from entering the United States as a result of President Trump’s executive order.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a temporary restraining order halting the removal of immigrants and refugees. Notably, the order also bars the government from detaining those individuals affected. It also limits secondary screening to the extent permitted prior to the Executive Order and requires Customs and Border Patrol to notify airlines that individuals affected by the Order arriving at Logan Airport will be allowed entry in the United States.

You can read some of them here
lawfareblog.com/trump-administration-faces-eo-setbacks-four-courts


#5

DHS will continue to enforce Trump’s travel ban

The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement early Sunday saying that they plan on continuing to “enforce all of the president’s executive orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people.”

foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/29/dhs-will-continue-to-enforce-trumps-travel-ban.html


#6

The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement early Sunday saying that they plan on continuing to “enforce all of the president’s executive orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people.”

… in a manner…
That must mean that they are dropping it.


#7

The EO is vague but the administration stated that specific guidance regarding enforcement and procedures would be forthcoming. The problem IMHO isn’t the vagary but the fact that the EO was effective “immediately” and the guidance was not ready to be issued. They should have been simultaneous.


#8

If there are more refugee-related terror attacks and crimes in the USA, we’ll know who to point the finger at, and it will not be Donald Trump.

The election in 2018 is looming, as are donations to the ACLU.


#9

Rank Amateurs.
So glad they haven’t yet through to play with the nukes.


#10

“Give him a chance”


#11

Yes that is one good thing about the wk. My cousin from WV just called me and said at least we made it thru the first wk without nuclear war.


#12

Isn’t that what the Trump supporters keep telling us?


#13

No it will be Donald Trump for inciting attacks thru his actions.


#14

Hopefully Trump will respond to California and Washington’s lawsuits with a drop in their federal funding, just as he has threatened for “sanctuary cities”.


#15

You are suggesting a constitutional crisis by disregarding the judicial branch? This is fascism.


#16

So you hope Trump responds by breaking the law?


#17

The setting of the budget (with the approval of Congress) is the prerogative of the President. It would be absolutely within his powers.

So you hope Trump responds by breaking the law?

I hope he stands up to jumped up liberal activist judges and the liberal pests that give them work.


#18

Good grief. The President may, and usually does propose a budget, and sometimes the Congress considered it. But the US budget is “set” by Congress. And set means set: see, Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

I hope he stands up to jumped up liberal activist judges and the liberal pests that give them work.

It will be interesting ot see what happens with if the executive branch defies the rule of law. How many of Trump’s supporters will prefer his rule to the rule of law?


#19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.