// 10/8/17 //
Two new legal challenges were filed against the Trump administration’s latest travel ban (ImmigrationProf Blog).
- Iranian Alliances Across Borders v. Trump was the first major lawsuit to be filed against the latest iteration of the travel ban. You can read the complaint here.
- The Brennan Center for Justice filed suit against the State Department to compel the administration to explain how it chose the countries in the latest ban. You can read the complaint here.
- It may not make sense to apply strict scrutiny to policies such as the travel ban that are motivated by animus, argues Michael Dorf at Dorf on Law.
- The best way for President Trump to protect the latest travel ban is to have Cabinet officials “declare under oath that the process . . . did not have any pre-ordained outcomes,” explains Sophia Brill at Lawfare.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the two cases challenging the March travel ban, arguing that they are now moot (NYT).
- The Solicitor General’s letter brief can be read here.
- The ACLU’s letter brief on behalf of the IRAP plaintiffs can be read here.
- Hogan Lovells’s brief on behalf of the Hawaii plaintiffs can be read here.
- Marty Lederman evaluates the briefs at Take Care.
- Lyle Denniston provides legal analysis of the mootness question.
The second travel ban's reference to "honor killings" displayed anti-Muslim animus that must be affirmatively cured in order for the third travel ban to be valid, explains Sarah Mahmood (Take Care).
Recently released documents showed that after Trump signed the original travel ban, federal officials lacked guidance (NYT).
The Trump Administration’s phase-out of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program began on Thursday night (LA Times).
- ‘Dreamers’ rushed to file documents before the October 5 renewal deadline (NYT).
- Some DACA beneficiaries criticized Democrats’ proposed compromise bills, worrying that the proposals may worsen things for parents and friends who don’t qualify (NYT).