Executive Orders

Through infamous and controversial orders, President Trump has sought to ban entrants from selected Muslim-majority nations.

Punching Down From The Pulpit, And Other Unpresidential Positions

8/8/17  //  Commentary

The President’s litigation positions underscore how he views his office as a license to beat up on persons with less power.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Second Thoughts About The Supreme Court’s Scheduling The Entry Ban Case

8/2/17  //  Commentary

The Court’s October Calendar Further Underscores That It Never Actually Intends To Resolve The Legality Of The Entry Ban

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Some Notes On The Latest “Ban”

7/31/17  //  Commentary

There are some notable similarities between the President's announcement that transgender individuals would be banned from military service, and the ban(s) on entry from several Muslim majority countries.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Highest Court in Massachusetts Declares the Commonwealth a Sanctuary State

7/24/17  //  Commentary

A landmark opinion turns Massachusetts into a sanctuary state, setting up a legal and political battle with DOJ.

Nikolas Bowie

Harvard Law School

Updates | The Week of July 17, 2017

7/23/17  //  Daily Update

The Supreme Court issued a partial stay of the district court's order granting relief to refugees from the revised travel ban. Reports suggest the President is weighing a new executive order that would expand expedited removal of undocumented immigrants.

The Supreme Court’s Travel Ban

7/19/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The Supreme Court is now a co-owner and co-author of the travel ban. That grows truer every time it tinkers with minutiae of this cruel, unjustified policy. And with that position comes major institutional risk to the Supreme Court’s public legitimacy.

Joshua Matz

Publisher

Litigating the Supreme Court’s Entry Ban Opinion: What’s the Required Connection?

7/19/17  //  Commentary

All of the briefs are now in on the government’s motion to the Supreme Court for clarification of its order in Trump v. Hawaii.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

Updates | The Week of July 10, 2017

7/16/17  //  Daily Update

Hawaii's litigation against the revised travel ban continues. There is uncertainty in the Trump Administration over who controls immigration issues.

Updates | The Week of July 3, 2017

7/9/17  //  Daily Update

A federal district judge rejected Hawaii's request to clarify the scope of the preliminary injunction against the revised travel ban. Commentary continued on the Supreme Court's decision to hear the travel ban case.

Updates | The Week of June 19, 2017

6/25/17  //  Daily Update

The Administration argues in its brief to the Supreme Court for the travel ban that the Court should not second-guess the President's national security judgments.

Updates | The Week of June 12, 2017

6/18/17  //  Daily Update

The Ninth Circuit largely upholds a lower court's injunction of President Trump's revised entry ban; the Administration responds with a request to the Supreme Court for supplemental briefing.

Updates | The Week of June 5, 2017

6/11/17  //  Daily Update

Discussion of the Trump administration's travel ban continued as the administration sought Supreme Court review of a nationwide injunction against the ban.

Improper Commands from President Trump's Employees?

3/16/17  //  Commentary

Key White House personnel might be violating important limits on their lawful authority.

Nikolas Bowie

Harvard Law School

No Peeking? Korematsu and Judicial Credulity

3/22/17  //  Commentary

The Supreme Court's decision in the Japanese Internment Cases offers a chilling reminder of why courts cannot close their eyes to clear evidence of bigotry in executive orders supposedly justified by security concerns.

Ian Samuel

Harvard Law School

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

McKayla Maroney Is Not Impressed (With DOJ's Brief in the Fourth Circuit)

3/27/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The Department of Justice has filed a brief in the Fourth Circuit defending President Trump's revised entry ban. This is not an impressive brief: it is rife with misstatements of fact and incorrect legal arguments.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Under-Inclusive Theory Of Discrimination (It's Not Going To Happen)

5/8/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The Trump administration has repeatedly (and incorrectly) argued that a policy does not constitute discrimination unless the policy discriminates against all members of a particular group.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Judge Kozinski Asked The Wrong Question & Got The Wrong Answer

3/20/17  //  Commentary

Judge Alex Kozinski, among others, has argued that President Trump's campaign statements are irrelevant to assessing the Muslim Ban. But his argument starts with the wrong question, and inevitably reaches the wrong answer.

Amir Ali

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

Latest Travel Ban Ruling Helps A Lot But Not Enough

7/14/17  //  Quick Reactions

It is likely that the Trump administration will simply seize on whatever ambiguity there is in the latest injunction to deny entry to as many people as it can. Why? Because that is the point of the Travel Ban.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

The Government And Grandparents (What's The Big Deal?)

7/15/17  //  Quick Reactions

DOJ rushed to the Supreme Court to ensure that the government wouldn't have to admit grandparents. Its arguments are silly.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Comey Affair And Evidence Of Motive

5/12/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The Comey affair underscores that decisionmakers must look beyond the administration’s “official” documents to determine the administration’s motives.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Justice Gorsuch, Executive Power, And Muslim Ban 2.0

3/20/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

A careful review of Judge Gorsuch's record reveals strong reason to believe that he would vote to uphold President Trump's revised Muslim Ban (and potentially many other executives abuses, too).

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Amir Ali

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

Versus Trump: The Healthcare Episode

6/1/17  //  Commentary

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Easha and Jason dig into healthcare for the first time, as they take a deep dive into the House v. Price litigation that addresses whether certain payments to insurers under the Affordable Care Act have been properly appropriated. They also debate immigration rhetoric vs. action and discuss drug testing for unemployment benefits. Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

En Banc Review? How Can I Say No?

3/30/17  //  Quick Reactions

When asked by the Fourth Circuit, the Government said it wanted to have the full court consider its Muslim ban. But the Government probably did not mean it.

Amir Ali

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

The Problem with Palmer

5/7/17  //  Commentary

In its Muslim Ban brief, DOJ favorably cites Palmer v. Thompson (1971)—which allowed Jackson, Mississippi to close public pools rather than integrate them. The Fourth Circuit should question DOJ about this stunning citation and make clear that Palmer, an odious ruling, has no place in anti-discrimination law today.

John-Paul Schnapper-Casteras

The NAACP LDF, Inc.

An Update on DACA

3/31/17  //  Latest Developments

The President's words indicate he is open to honoring DACA (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program). But his actions (and inactions) suggest otherwise.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

What It Means To Be Presidential: Litigating Positions

7/11/17  //  Commentary

Jane Chong questioned whether the administration's “self-interested [legal] stance" in the cases about the emoluments clauses "is ... fundamentally at odds with the trust that the office [of the President] confers.” It's worth asking the same about the administration's litigating position on the scope of the injunction against the entry ban.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Supreme Court's Contribution to the Offense of Flying While Muslim

6/27/17  //  Commentary

By making fine distinctions between who Trump can or cannot ban from the US, the Supreme Court has opened the door to greater discrimination against Muslims at the border.

Amir Ali

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

The President's Statements On The London Attacks

6/5/17  //  Commentary

The President's statements on the London attacks reveal how the President thinks about his entry ban, and also what he might do if there is ever an attack on the United States.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Helen Klein Murillo

Harvard Law School '17

The Establishment Clause and the Muslim Ban

3/18/17  //  Commentary

Why the Establishment Clause Has Emerged as the Chief Stumbling Block for Trump's Muslim Ban

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

The Standard Fare of Judges: What Happens When the Judiciary Does What It Always Does

3/28/17  //  Commentary

The Muslim Ban litigation does not involve a "revolt of the judges." As proven by a survey of major and minor cases from the legal canon, this litigation involves only the standard fare of judging.

Daniel Deacon

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

On The Travel Ban The Supreme Court Says: Stay Tuned

6/26/17  //  Quick Reactions

Some quick thoughts on the Supreme Court's actions on the travel ban.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The President Resuscitates the Entry Ban: Where Should the Supreme Court Go From Here?

6/15/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

In this post I explain why, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Monday, there’s no good reason for the Supreme Court to grant any of the government’s petitions or applications.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

The President’s Clarifying Memorandum And The Amicus Brief About Animus

6/20/17  //  Commentary

The President’s clarifying memorandum undercuts the legitimate rationale the executive order and DOJ had offered for the entry ban. An amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court explains why that matters.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Attorney General, Hawaii Statehood, and National Injunctions

4/21/17  //  Quick Reactions

The AG's comments denigrating Hawaii statehood are objectionable for many reasons. But don't overlook his underlying complaint about national injunctions—which conservatives spent years developing and have suddenly, painfully discovered can be used against them.

Joshua Matz

Publisher

The President’s Dilemma

3/17/17  //  Commentary

An emergency appeal on the Muslim Ban may be both rational and his worst outcome.

Amir Ali

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

The Trump Administration’s Immigration-Related Detentions

3/24/17  //  Commentary

The Supreme Court is considering a major constitutional challenge to federal immigration detention policies. Trump’s recent executive orders make that case even more significant.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

How the President’s Clarifying Memorandum Destroys the Case for the Entry Ban

6/15/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The President's "clarifying" memorandum undermines the facial legitimacy of the entry ban, and the government's stated purposes for the entry ban.

Take Care

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

A Compilation of Travel Ban Legal Analyses From Around the Web

5/5/17  //  Latest Developments

Take Care hereby presents in a single post all commentary we have rounded up in our daily updates since the site launched on March 16. Together, these articles tell the story of the revised travel ban and offer a diverse set of perspectives on legal issues in the litigation.

Take Care

Animus, Past and Present

5/9/17  //  Commentary

In a new op-ed, Erwin Chemerinsky and I argue that the entry ban is unconstitutional because it was driven by animus toward Muslims.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Embracing Federalism

3/16/17  //  Commentary

It is time for progressives to embrace federalism and to use Supreme Court precedents protecting states’ rights to fight against Trump administration policies

Erwin Chemerinsky

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Trump Is Not Playing Ten-Dimensional Chess; He's Not Even Playing Checkers; He's Barely Playing Peekaboo

6/6/17  //  Commentary

Let's explore the hypothesis that Trump is deliberately sabotaging the already weak case for sustaining the travel ban. This is extremely unlikely. As they say in medical school, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. The most obvious explanation--Trump is an ignorant racist with no impulse control--should dominate more intricate theories.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

Information Wars Part V: Immigrant Crime Disinformation

4/20/17  //  Commentary

In its war on information, the Trump administration is not just trying to hide the facts. It’s also trying to misrepresent them.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Helen Klein Murillo

Harvard Law School '17

The First Amendment Belongs Only to Americans? Wrong

3/29/17  //  Commentary

The First Amendment makes America great for everyone, not just for citizens.

Nikolas Bowie

Harvard Law School

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Judicial Deference to President Trump

5/8/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

It is time to ask: Has Trump in effect forfeited some measure of judicial deference across contexts and cases, through his disrespect for the courts and the rule of law and his displays of prejudice and arbitrary decisionmaking? And if he has not yet reached that point, what more would it take?

Dawn Johnsen

Indiana University Maurer School of Law

Opposing Trump's Muslim Ban at the Supreme Court

6/16/17  //  Quick Reactions

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to lift the stay preventing him from implementing his travel ban. Nelson Tebbe, Micah Schwartzman and I, along with a large group of constitutional law scholars, have filed a brief opposing Trump's motion.

Corey Brettschneider

Brown University

Why Trump's Travel Ban Statements Compel a Finding of Improper Purpose

4/6/17  //  Commentary

Trump's statements about the revised travel ban overwhelmingly evidence a purpose at odds with the Establishment Clause. And few, if any, of those statements evince actual, substantive national security or foreign affairs objectives that explain the bizarre scope of his order.

Joshua Matz

Publisher

Travel Ban Misconceptions II: Animus & Non-Citizen/Foreign Muslims

5/3/17  //  Commentary

The Muslim Ban targets Muslims everywhere. The notion that it reflects, at most, animus toward foreign (or non-citizen) Muslims doesn't withstand scrutiny. There can be no doubt that it inflicts severe and continuing injury on the American Muslim Community.

Amir Ali

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

Joshua Matz

Publisher

An Updated Guide to Our Analyses of the Travel Ban

6/30/17  //  Latest Developments

Take Care hereby presents in a single, updated post all commentary we have published about the revised travel ban.

Take Care

The Travel Ban And The Supreme Court

6/2/17  //  Quick Reactions

The government's petition for certiorari and stay requests raise some difficult timing issues in the travel ban litigation.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Basic Error In Texas’s Amicus Brief In The Travel Ban Case (aka Youngstown Zone Zero Redux)

6/7/17  //  Commentary

Texas’s Amicus Brief Makes An Argument That Is So Obviously Wrong Some People Thought It Was Not Worth Responding To

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Ian Samuel

Harvard Law School

The Administration's Travel Ban Guidance

6/29/17  //  Commentary

The administration has again attempted to push the boundaries to see what it can get away with on the travel ban guidance.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Why Firing Comey Guts DOJ's Main Defense of the Muslim Ban 

5/10/17  //  Commentary

Sometimes, when an emissary of the President asks courts to “trust us,” things the President does elsewhere can fatally undermine judicial confidence in the President’s respect for rule of law values. We’ve seen it before and we’re about to see it again.

Joshua Matz

Publisher

The Muslim Ban and Trump's Latest Tweets

6/5/17  //  Quick Reactions

Thanks in part to the President's own recent tweets and public comments, the case for concluding that his revised travel ban is unconstitutional has now become overwhelming.

Corey Brettschneider

Brown University

The Ninth Circuit Can Doom Trump’s Travel Ban

6/1/17  //  Commentary

The Ninth Circuit can give life to one of the challengers' most powerful arguments against Supreme Court review.

Amir Ali

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

The Imperatives of Structure: The Travel Ban, the Establishment Clause, and Standing to Sue

4/3/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

In the Fourth Circuit travel ban appeal, DOJ contends that the plaintiffs lack standing. But a deeper examination of the Establishment Clause proves that the plaintiffs’ claims must be heard on the merits.

Ira C. Lupu

George Washington University Law School

Peter J. Smith

George Washington University Law School

Robert W. Tuttle

George Washington University Law School

A Rough Guide to Amicus Briefs In the Travel Ban Cases

4/24/17  //  Latest Developments

Take Care offers a quick, rough breakdown of the amicus briefs filed last week concerning President Trump's revised executive order.

Take Care

Tweetstorm Round Deux

6/5/17  //  Commentary

The President's latest statements on Twitter undermine DOJ's defense of the entry ban, and continue the President's efforts to blame everyone (including DOJ and the courts) but himself.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

It's All About that Stay (and Its Surprising Limits)

6/26/17  //  Quick Reactions

Preliminary thoughts on the Supreme Court's travel ban order.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

Versus Trump: Muslim Ban Argument Recap

5/9/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

It's our first emergency podcast! Right after the full Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments in a major case regarding the Muslim Travel Ban, we hopped on the line to do a recap. The podcast includes excerpts from the oral argument audio.

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Animus and the Travel Ban

5/8/17  //  Commentary

One of the founding principles of this nation is that our government welcomes those of all faiths and rejects religious intolerance. President Trump’s order contravenes our nation’s fundamental commitment to religious freedom and to the equal protection of the laws. Federal courts should declare it unconstitutional.

Micah Schwartzman

University of Virginia School of Law

Nelson Tebbe

Brooklyn Law School

Corey Brettschneider

Brown University

A Reality Check On Proceedings Related To The Entry Ban Injunctions

7/13/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Some commentators are seizing on court orders in the proceedings related to the scope of the injunction against the entry ban as an indication that courts are rethinking their decisions against the entry ban. That's wrong (with a cautionary note about the federal courts).

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Fourth Circuit & Animus Under Mandel

5/25/17  //  Quick Reactions

By Corey Brettschneider: As the Fourth Circuit recognized today, even if Kleindanst v. Mandel supplies the rule of decision and requires rationality review, animus is fatal to the Muslim Ban even under that standard.

Take Care

See You In Court: Ninth Circuit Round 2

6/12/17  //  Quick Reactions

A quick recap of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hawaii v. Trump with thoughts about what it portends for the Supreme Court.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Some Thoughts on the Government’s Latest Filing in the Entry Ban Cases

6/19/17  //  Commentary

Here I offer three quick reactions to the government’s latest filing in the Ninth Circuit case—the first two on questions concerning what the Court should do now with the government’s applications, and the third with respect to the merits of the statutory ultra vires argument on which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relied.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

The Government’s Vanishing National Security Rationale (aka Round 10000 In The Incompetence Versus Malevolence Debate)

6/8/17  //  Commentary

The government’s litigation strategy in the travel ban litigation undermines the purported national security rationale for the entry ban.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

A Response to Will Baude on Mootness in the Entry Ban Case

6/3/17  //  Commentary

I've argued that the Supreme Court shouldn't grant review of the travel ban case because 33 hours after the Respondents file their response to the petition for certiorari on June 12, the entry ban will no longer be operative. Here I respond to two purportedly “plausible” alternative interpretations of the executive order offered by William Baude.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

Misconceptions Part I: Trump, Muslims, and the Travel Ban

5/2/17  //  Commentary

Misperceptions of the Muslim Ban case abound. One of them is that Trump's animus is evidenced only by his campaign promise to ban Muslims from America. That promise, we demonstrate, must be situated in the context of Trump's sustained and wide-ranging crusade against the American Muslim community.

Amir Ali

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

Joshua Matz

Publisher

See You In Court 3.0

5/25/17  //  Quick Reactions

A quick recap of the Fourth Circuit's decision in IRAP v. Trump.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Clarifying Memorandum Is Not A Reason For A Stay

6/21/17  //  Quick Reactions

An analysis of DOJ's latest filing at SCOTUS in the travel ban cases.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Mootness and Munsingwear in the Travel Ban Litigation

6/6/17  //  Commentary

A Munsingwear vacatur could be an intriguing compromise in the travel ban case that just might generate consensus on the Supreme Court. It would let the Justices avoid wading into treacherous constitutional waters. But it would also avoid giving the impression that the Court approved of a nationwide injunction about which the conservative Justices will, I suspect, have serious concerns.

Daniel Epps

Washington University Law School

It Matters How and When SCOTUS Reviews the Muslim Ban

5/30/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

A detailed guide to how and when the Muslim Ban might reach the Supreme Court (and why this question really matters).

Joshua Matz

Publisher

Why Courts Have Probed Trump’s Motives for the Travel Ban

4/4/17  //  Commentary

Perceptions of presidential bad faith have given judges the fortitude to do what the law already demands of them, even though their actions might prompt the President to bash them by name on TV or Twitter.

Joshua Matz

Publisher

Back to the Supreme Court on the Scope of the Entry Ban Injunction: First Thoughts

7/15/17  //  Commentary

Now that the travel ban is back in the Supreme Court, here are four additional, preliminary thoughts on where things stand.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

Donald Trump’s Say-So is Not a Presidential “National Security Judgment”

6/21/17  //  Quick Reactions

Analysis of DOJ's filing at SCOTUS today in the travel ban cases.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

Seriously? The Court Intended to Exclude Grandmas from the Preliminary Injunctions?

6/29/17  //  Commentary

A post on the absurdity of the Administration’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s modification of the travel-ban/refugee-limit preliminary injunctions.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

Animus Revisited: DOJ Fails To Explain Change in Position on Relevance of Campaign Statements

6/23/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

DOJ can't distinguish a case from 1995 in which it took a diametrically opposed view on the relevance of campaign statements.

Jim Oleske

Lewis & Clark Law School

The Muslim Ban: Answering Tough Questions About Motive

4/21/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The opinion by then-Justice Rehnquist in Hunter v. Underwood (1985), a case about denying the right to vote for racist reasons, offers thoughtful answers to many of the hardest questions that you might ask about motive and the Muslim Ban.

Richard Primus

University of Michigan Law School

The Administration's Travel Ban Guidance Falls Short of Good Faith

6/29/17  //  Quick Reactions

As reported by the New York Times, the Administration's travel ban guidance shows a lack of respect for the Supreme Court's directive.

Amir Ali

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

Motive Matters in Assessing the Travel Ban

3/20/17  //  Commentary

To the extent that Trump’s statements about the travel ban shed light on why the executive orders were issued—and they surely do—those statements are material to the constitutional analysis.

Richard Primus

University of Michigan Law School

Lower Courts: Don’t Try This at Home

6/27/17  //  Commentary

The Supreme Court’s travel ban order deviates sharply from well-established standards for the granting of a stay. For better or for worse, the spirit of compromise trumped the letter of the law.

Daniel Hemel

University of Chicago Law School

A Different View of Why the Muslim Ban Violates the Establishment Clause

4/20/17  //  Commentary

A diverse group of leading constitutional law scholars—representing many different views about the Establishment Clause—has filed an amicus brief challenging the Muslim Ban. Here's what you need to know.

Joshua Matz

Publisher

Corey Brettschneider

Brown University

Micah Schwartzman

University of Virginia School of Law

Nelson Tebbe

Brooklyn Law School

Sherley You’re Joking

3/27/17  //  Commentary

A confused and poorly reasoned decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit shouldn’t be read to shield agencies from judicial review whenever they happen to be following an executive order.

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School

See You In Court 2.0

3/16/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Last night, a federal judge in Hawaii blocked Trump's revised entry ban. Here is a detailed analysis of its decision and an assessment of what likely will happen next in that litigation.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The World Is Not Made Brand New Every Morning

3/20/17  //  Commentary

Judge Kozinski thinks that we cannot account for President Trump's campaign statements in the Muslim Ban cases. That is wrong. Courts can, and should, reckon with this history in assessing whether Trump's ban comports with religious neutrality.

Jonathan Taylor

Gupta Wessler PLLC

Trump’s Approach to Crime & Punishment

3/16/17  //  Commentary

The president has continued existing policies, but also signaled a misplaced (and dangerous) reliance on immigration enforcement and incarceration to protect the public.

Chiraag Bains

Harvard Law School

Unlocking the Mysteries of the Supreme Court’s Entry Ban Case

6/27/17  //  Commentary

Many close observers of the Court are still scratching their heads, trying to figure out just exactly what the Court did yesterday in Trump v. IRAP–and why. With the luxury of a few hours to ponder the mysteries, here are some tentative speculations on the most commonly posed questions.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

The Travel Ban's Non-Urgency, In Pictures

6/7/17  //  Commentary

The Administration's unhurried pace in defending its revised travel ban belies its representations of urgency to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Amir Ali

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

Travel Ban Misconceptions Part III: False Analogies To “Imprecise” Campaign Talk

5/4/17  //  Commentary

Trump's promise to ban Muslims was no vague, imprecise, or passing comment made on the fly during campaign season. It was a deliberate, carefully considered, and oft-repeated promise that fit perfectly into Trump's broader vision of discrimination against American Muslims.

Amir Ali

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

Joshua Matz

Publisher

Youngstown Zone Zero

3/16/17  //  Commentary

Justice Jackson's famous separation of powers framework offers no support for President Trump's entry ban. In fact, it's irrelevant.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Ian Samuel

Harvard Law School

Judge Keenan Identifies The Most Straightforward Reason Why The Entry Ban Is Unlawful

5/9/17  //  Commentary

In the Fourth Circuit argument in IRAP v. Trump, Judge Keenan put her finger on a simple, basic reason why Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13769 is unlawful—and it doesn’t have much to do with the Establishment Clause. Rather, it’s a matter of everyday statutory interpretation, and the fact that President Trump has failed to establish the necessary precondition for the exercise of his statutory authority.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

Faith in the Ninth Circuit

3/16/17  //  Commentary

An analysis of Judge Bybee's dissent from denial of rehearing en banc in Washington v. Trump, and some predictions about the future of President Trump's revised entry ban.

Daniel Hemel

University of Chicago Law School

Updates | The Week of March 20, 2017

3/26/17  //  Daily Update

The week was rich with analysis at Take Care and beyond of President Trump’s revised entry ban. The Administration has asked the Fourth Circuit to expedite the appeal. In the meantime, diplomatic cables reveal “extreme vetting” policies may be ramping up.

Helen Klein Murillo

Harvard Law School '17

Updates | The Week of May 1, 2017

5/7/17  //  Daily Update

Comparisons between President Trump’s promise to exclude Muslims from the United States and vague off-the-cuff comments during campaign season are inapt.

Updates | The Week of April 24, 2017

4/30/17  //  Daily Update

An amicus brief offered an alternative basis to find the Administration's travel ban unconstitutional.

Updates | The Week of March 27, 2017

4/2/17  //  Daily Update

Litigation over President Trump's revised travel ban order continues: a federal judge in Hawaii issued a preliminary injunction against the order, and the Fourth Circuit will take initial en banc review of a similar injunction.

Updates | The Week of April 3, 2017

4/9/17  //  Daily Update

Litigation challenging President Trump's revised immigration order continues in courts. Questions over President Trump's campaign statements and intent continue to linger.

The Story Thus Far: Immigration

3/16/17  //  Daily Update

President Trump has issued two very controversial executive orders, both banning entrants from selected Muslim-majority nations. Here are some useful analyses of the story thus far.

Updates | The Week of May 8, 2017

5/14/17  //  Daily Update

The en banc Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments on the revised travel ban, sparking extensive commentary. An advocacy group filed a FOIA request related to border searches of electronic devices in the possession of individuals covered by the travel ban.

Updates | The Week of April 10, 2017

4/16/17  //  Daily Update

This week, Hawaii asked the Ninth Circuit for full court review of the revised entry order. The Fourth Circuit, in an unusual move, agreed to hear the Trump Administration's revised entry order appeal en banc, with oral arguments set for May 8.

Updates | The Week of April 17, 2017

4/11/17  //  Daily Update

President Trump continues to sign executive orders on immigration, and advocates continue to fight them in the courts.

Take Care