Derek Reinbold  //  4/2/17  //  Topic Update

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Hawaii converted his temporary restraining order against President Trump’s revised travel ban into a preliminary injunction (NYT).

• The order can be found here.
• Yesterday, the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal from the Hawaii ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (WaPo).
• Lyle Denniston breaks down the order and explains what options the Trump Administration has going forward.
• At Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson analyzes the latest order.
• Josh Blackman offers a quick reaction comparing the orders issued by federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland.
• At Lawfare, Peter Margulies critiques the order as overbroad.
• The New York Times profiles individual plaintiffs across the sprawling legal challenges to the Administration’s travel ban.

On Thursday, both DOJ and Plaintiffs endorsed an offer from the Fourth Circuit for initial en banc review of an order enjoining the revised travel ban (Lyle Denniston).

• This is the appeal from a ruling by Judge Chuang (D. Maryland).
• Trump Administration lawyers would support review of the revised entry ban by an en banc panel of the Fourth Circuit, but only if that would not slow things down, Lyle Denniston reports.
• On Take Care, Amir Ali examines why the government would agree to initial en banc proceedings.
• Tina Vasquez explains the privacy consequences of the revised entry ban for noncitizens who are not green card holders.

13 States have filed an amicus brief urging the Fourth Circuit to reverse an injunction halting part of the revised entry ban (Law360).

•        Their brief can be found here.

DOJ’s brief defending President Trump's revised entry ban on appeal in the Fourth Circuit is riddled with factual and legal errors, as Leah Litman explains for Take Care.

• Matthew Segal of the ACLU argues that President Trump’s campaign statements must be considered in judicial review of the revised entry ban.
• DOJ’s brief "seems to implicitly admit some measure of doubt as to whether Trump’s [Oath of Office] will be accepted at face value" (Lawfare). 

The backlash to President Trump's revised entry ban is not a "revolt of the judges," but rather standard judicial practice in response to extraordinary events, as Leah Litman and Daniel Deacon explain for Take Care.

• Jay Shooster of Just Security echoes this position here.
• Cyrus Mehta critiques President Trump’s immigration rhetoric on the Insightful Immigration Blog.

President Trump could be intentionally stalling the Ninth Circuit revised entry ban appeal, opines Josh Gerstein (Politico)

• Josh Blackman suggests that the Ninth Circuit delay may be procedural.

The First Amendment applies to noncitizens, it applies abroad, and it applies to noncitizens abroad, as Niko Bowie and Leah Litman explain on Take Care.

Seattle filed suit yesterday challenging President Trump’s executive order threatening to revoke federal funding from sanctuary cities (Politico, ABA Journal).

• The complaint can be found here.
• Kevin Johnson explains the city’s primary legal arguments: that the executive order is unconstitutionally vague and coercive, and that the city’s policies do not violate federal law (ImmigrationProf Blog).
• At Volokh Conspiracy, David Post proposes rebranding “sanctuary cities” as “constitutional cities,” arguing that these jurisdictions are not inhibiting law enforcement but rather protecting “cherished constitutional principles.”
• Michael Crowley of the Brennan Center for Justice argues that the Administration’s focus on sanctuary cities is detrimental to public safety.
• Meanwhile, Connecticut Governor Dannel Manoy unveiled a preparedness tool for undocumented parents in the event they are detained by ICE (BBC). 

President Trump’s executive order increasing border security raises the stakes of Hernández v. Mesa, a cross-border shooting case pending before the Supreme Court, explains Leah Litman on Take Care.

Leah Litman explains, on Take Care, how President Trump’s recent executive orders make the Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez even more important.

• In Jennings, the Court will decide whether the government must afford a bond hearing to all persons detained for immigration-related reasons for longer than six months.

At Take Care, Nick Bagley describes why executive orders aren’t the final say for federal agencies.

Last Friday, District Court Judge Anthony Trenga in the Eastern District of Virginia denied a request to block President Trump’s revised entry ban, claiming he would not analyze the president’s motives (Bloomberg).

• Peter Margulies on Lawfare and Lyle Denniston analyze Judge Trenga’s decision.
• On Verdict, Vikram David Amar and Alan E. Brownstein discuss the complexities of a motive analysis in challenging President Trump’s executive order on immigration.
• On Lawfare, Jane Chong argues that courts should consider the relationship between national security considerations and religious animus.

Tags: