Julia Sherman, Ryan Hayward  //  6/13/17  //  Daily Update

The Ninth Circuit largely upheld an injunction of President Trump’s revised entry ban. Maryland and the District of Columbia filed lawsuits against President Trump alleging violations of the Emoluments Clauses. The Justice Department argued that federal courts cannot review the Administration’s approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Trump Administration will recommend limits for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

IMMIGRATION

The Ninth Circuit has largely upheld a lower court’s injunction of President Trump’s revised entry ban (NYT, WaPo, LA Times, AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, The Hill, Politico).

• Here is the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.
• At Take Care, Leah Litman unpacks the decision and explains the implications for Supreme Court review.
• The ruling avoids constitutional issues by relying on statutory violations, says Debra Cassens Weiss (ABA Journal).
• At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern argues that the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning provides the Supreme Court with a narrower basis on which to rule against President Trump.
• At Balkinization, Mark Tushnet suggests the ruling makes it easier for the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as moot.
• Hawaii cited President Trump’s recent entry-ban tweetstorm in its brief asking the Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s stay of that ban, writed Lydia Wheeler (The Hill).
• The Ninth Circuit also cited one of the President’s tweets in its Monday ruling, notes David Kravets (Ars Technica).
• At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick discusses how the Ninth Circuit’s citation to President Trump’s tweets may dispel the notion that tweets are not official statements by the President.
• The Supreme Court should expedite resolution of the entry ban case, argues Joshua Blackman (NYT).
• Lyle Denniston suggests the Supreme Court may decide as early as this week whether to take up the case.

The Trump Administration’s deportation policies are depriving people of due process rights, argues Jennifer Chacón at Take Care.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

On Monday, Maryland and the District of Columbia filed lawsuits against President Trump, alleging violations of the Emoluments Clauses (NYT, WaPo, LA Times, ABA Journal).

• At Take Care, Laurence H. Tribe and Joshua Matz explain how Maryland and D.C. have standing to pursue their claims against President Trump.
• Also at Take Care, Leah Litman analyzes a new standing theory for emoluments cases introduced in the suit.
• The government has become the ultimate extension of President Trump’s for-profit brand, writes Naomi Klein at The Intercept.

The Government’s brief in CREW v. Trump reveals that President Trump is violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause, argues Marty Lederman at Take Care.

• Also at Take Care, Leah Litman notes that the Justice Department’s brief blurs the distinction between the President’s role as a businessman and as the President.

The President’s business interests may ultimately be his greatest vulnerability in the emoluments cases, writes Andrew Rice (NY Magazine).

Democrats have introduced a bill to prevent President Trump’s properties from receiving federally subsidized flood insurance (The Hill).

CIVIL RIGHTS

President Trump blocking Twitter followers due to disagreements with their views raises serious First Amendment concerns, explains Amanda Shanor at Take Care.

The National Women’s Law Center is suing the Department of Education for failing to provide information on its enforcement of sexual-harassment complaints (NWLC, Feministing).

• Here is the complaint.

President Trump’s executive order hasn’t ended litigation challenging the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit, notes Jessica Mason Pieklo (Rewire).

The federal government has a responsibility to count older LGBT Americans, argues Kathy Greenlee at Health Affairs Blog.

JUSTICE & SAFETY

Continued departures by career diplomats would severely undermine efforts to keep the country safe, explains Michael Fuchs at Just Security.

Secretary of Defense Mattis is attempting to distance himself from President Trump’s politics (NYT).

Advocates of criminal justice reform are looking to Jared Kushner for support (The Atlantic).

The Trump Administration is trying to persuade the Senate not to condemn a weapons transfer to Saudi Arabia (The Intercept).

REGULATION 

The Trump Administration has refused to sign a G7 declaration committing to action on climate change (The Hill).

President Trump declared Monday that he has “passed more legislation” than any president besides FDR, but history says otherwise (Politico).

The Trump Administration will recommend limits be placed on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (WSJ).

A judge denied the government’s bids to halt a climate change lawsuit brought by young people against the federal government for violating their constitutional rights (WaPo).

The Justice Department is arguing that the federal courts cannot review the Trump Administration’s approval of the Keystone XL pipeline (The Hill).

The Interior Secretary has recommended that President Trump remove current protections to part of Utah’s Bears Ears National Moment (The Hill).

CHECKS & BALANCES

The Trump Administration is undermining the role of the inspectors general in federal agencies, writes the NYT Editorial Board.

• Nearly a quarter of inspectors general positions are currently vacant, reports the Project on Government Oversight.

RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE

President Trump’s lawyer may be blurring the line between the President’s public and private interests, report Rebecca R. Ruiz and Sharon LaFraniere (NYT).

• At Lawfare, Paul Rosenzweig notes that Kasowitz does not seem familiar with criminal investigations and may even need ethics counsel of his own.
• Also at Lawfare, Bob Bauer writes that Kasowitz’s actions suggest an institutional breakdown of norms underlying the rule of law.
• Following up on previous posts, Eric Posner and Daniel Hemel consider the line between presidential obstruction of justice and legitimate use of executive power (Eric Posner).

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will testify in open session before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday (WaPo, WSJ, Politico).

• At Just Security, Ryan Goodman wonders if Sessions is about to commit perjury.

And that's our update today!  Thanks for reading.  We cover a lot of ground, so our updates are inevitably a partial selection of relevant legal commentary.  

If you have any feedback, please let us know here.