More states seek to halt Trump's new travel ban in court

[webfact]

More states seek to halt Trump's new travel ban in court

By Dan Levine and Mica Rosenberg

REUTERS

 

U.S. President Donald Trump salutes as he walks from Marine One and returns to the White House in Washington, U.S., March 5, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

 

(Reuters) - Several states said on Thursday they would move forward with legal challenges to a revised executive order signed by President Donald Trump this week that temporarily bars the admission of refugees and some travellers from a group of Muslim-majority countries.

 

The new travel order, which is set to take effect on March 16, replaced a more sweeping ban issued on Jan. 27 that caused chaos and protests at airports.

 

The first order was hit by more than two dozen lawsuits, including a challenge brought by Washington state and joined by Minnesota.

 

In response to Washington's lawsuit, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle ordered an emergency halt to the policy last month. That ruling was upheld by an appeals court in San Francisco.

 

Washington state Attorney General Robert Ferguson said on Thursday he planned to ask Robart to confirm that his ruling would also apply to Trump's revised order, which would halt it from being implemented.

 

Ferguson told a news conference the new order harmed a "smaller group" of individuals but that would not affect the state's ability to challenge it in court.

 

He said the burden was on the Trump administration to show that the court ruling from last month did not apply to its new policy.

A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman declined to comment on pending litigation.

 

The government has said the president has wide authority to implement immigration policy and that the travel rules are necessary to protect against terrorist attacks.

 

The states and immigration advocates argue the new ban, like the original one, discriminates against Muslims.

 

New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, said on Thursday he would be joining Washington's lawsuit against the new ban and the state of Oregon said it would join too. The attorney general for Massachusetts, Maura Healey, said on Twitter she would be joining Washington's challenge to "Trump's unlawful #MuslimBan2."

 

Minnesota is also continuing to pursue the Seattle case alongside Washington.

 

During his presidential campaign, Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." He later toned down that language and said he would implement a policy of "extreme vetting" of foreigners coming to the country.

 

The opposition from the states comes on top of a separate legal challenge to the new ban brought by Hawaii on Wednesday. Hawaii had also sued over the previous order and is seeking to amend its complaint to include the new ban.

 

A hearing in that case is set for next Wednesday, a day before the clock starts on the new order.

 

MORE EXEMPTIONS

 

Trump's new executive order was designed with the intention of avoiding the legal hurdles.

 

While the new order keeps a 90-day ban on travel to the United States by citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, it excludes Iraq.

 

Refugees are still halted from entering the country for 120 days, but the new order removed an indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria.

 

The revisions include explicit exemptions for legal permanent residents or existing visa holders. Waivers are allowed on a case-by-case basis for some business, diplomatic and other travellers.

 

The first hurdle for the lawsuits will be proving "standing," which means finding someone who has been harmed by the policy. With so many exemptions, legal experts have said it might be hard to find individuals who would have a right to sue, in the eyes of a court.

 

(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco and Mica Rosenberg in New York; Editing by Peter Cooney and Matthew Lewis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-10

[Rhys]

....they (45 and others) continue to administrate this properly...just send KellyAnne in she will speak it clearly and accurately.... 555

[Emster23]

If Trump admin have to supply rationale for this latest tanTrump, they will be in deep doo doo. "Cuz Donnie wants it and he is president" just won't cut it.....

[jesimps]

The liberals don't give a stuff about banning muslims, they just want to make life difficult for DT. I can see a lot of govt business getting choked up next time the Republicans are in opposition in a tit for tat move.

Obama had it easy due to the right playing by the democratic rules.

 

[Buckwheat Flour]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Maybe we should give a new

 

Maybe we should rename the Republican Party. How about The Vandals?

Didn't the Vandals recently beat the Kumbayas in the arena Maxiumus? 

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, jesimps said:

The liberals don't give a stuff about banning muslims, they just want to make life difficult for DT. I can see a lot of govt business getting choked up next time the Republicans are in opposition in a tit for tat move.

Obama had it easy due to the right playing by the democratic rules.

 

All they did from the beginning was boycott everything Obama.

[Thailand]

Disunited states? 

[dunroaming]

19 minutes ago, Thailand said:

Disunited states? 

And getting more so as long as the Trump is  in the big chair.

[little mary sunshine]

56 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Still banging that drum?  If that is the best you have then there's not much hope is there.  Your arguments should be about what a great job Trump is doing and how the world is applauding his every move. Worth a try?

Only in Office 44 Days and the HRC Dems are pulling every dirty

trick to block His Programs....Usual BS in Washington.....they should

all be fired!!

[jerojero]

The liberals don't give a stuff about banning muslims, they just want to make life difficult for DT. I can see a lot of govt business getting choked up next time the Republicans are in opposition in a tit for tat move.
Obama had it easy due to the right playing by the democratic rules.
 

Obama had it easy, with every move opposed by the Republicans? With the b's birther push, a Trump favourite? Now shoe is on other foot and Republicans call foul. Hypocrites.

[little mary sunshine]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Just look at what they did to the Republican health care plan! D.O.A.

A Health Care Plan will be formulated so the

working people can afford the premiums, also,

Hopefully ,the Republican Congress will read this 

Plan and not push it through blind like the

Polesie gang of thieves did.

[joecoolfrog]

I remember the 'patriotic ' constitutionalists being rabidly in favour of State rights , or is that only the case when it suits them ?

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, little mary sunshine said:

A Health Care Plan will be formulated so the

working people can afford the premiums, also,

Hopefully ,the Republican Congress will read this 

Plan and not push it through blind like the

Polesie gang of thieves did.

So, it's clear that you haven't read any actual analyses of what the plan will actually do.

And are you aware of how the Republicans were keeping the plan hidden away where only other Republicans could see it.  And how they aren't waiting for the CBO to do a projection of its cost before trying to get it passed in the House?

Edited March 10, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Rimmer]

Some sarcastic baiting troll posts have been removed also replies

[Buckwheat Flour]

37 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And thank you for providing the evidence to support my characterization. For your sake, I live in hope that someday you will provide some contrary evidence.

Thanks for your concern.  Narcissist are not swayed by "evidence", and in that respect we are joined at the hip. 

 

[mrwebb8825]

By the time I got to the end of the posts, I had to go back and reread the OP. Didn't see the health care bill mentioned anywhere.

Mods, what happened to the "Off Topic Posts Removed" rule? 

On 3/10/2017 at 6:18 AM, webfact said:

The first hurdle for the lawsuits will be proving "standing," which means finding someone who has been harmed by the policy. With so many exemptions, legal experts have said it might be hard to find individuals who would have a right to sue, in the eyes of a court.

This pretty much sums up where the new law suits are going to run into roadblocks. Trying to find a willing, Illegal Immigrant to stand up and say; "Yes, I'm breaking the immigration laws that are ALREADY in place and now wish to thumb my nose at the whole of America by claiming that the enforcement of YOUR countries laws are harmful to ME by making it increasingly difficult to KEEP VIOLATING your laws." 

Rock On Dems.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

By the time I got to the end of the posts, I had to go back and reread the OP. Didn't see the health care bill mentioned anywhere.

Mods, what happened to the "Off Topic Posts Removed" rule? 

This pretty much sums up where the new law suits are going to run into roadblocks. Trying to find a willing, Illegal Immigrant to stand up and say; "Yes, I'm breaking the immigration laws that are ALREADY in place and now wish to thumb my nose at the whole of America by claiming that the enforcement of YOUR countries laws are harmful to ME by making it increasingly difficult to KEEP VIOLATING your laws." 

Rock On Dems.

You're complaining about about irrelevant posts? This topic is not about illegal immigrants. It's about the legality of an executive order. 

[mrwebb8825]

20 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

You're complaining about about irrelevant posts? This topic is not about illegal immigrants. It's about the legality of an executive order. 

The legality of the executive order covering ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? You must be a barber by trade the way you like to split hairs.

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

The legality of the executive order covering ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? You must be a barber by trade the way you like to split hairs.

Wrong, Refugees are not legally defined as 'illegal immigrants', nor does the OP mention 'illegals'

[boomerangutang]

On 3/10/2017 at 9:38 AM, little mary sunshine said:

HRC poor sport  losers doing their thing!!

'Doing their thing' ....like upholding some of the basic tenets of what it means to be American.  One of those tenets is to not discriminate based on religion or ethnicity.  Everyone debating the immigration issue in D.C. is either an immigrant or the son/daughter of immigrants.  

 

On 3/10/2017 at 5:51 PM, little mary sunshine said:

Only in Office 44 Days and the HRC Dems are pulling every dirty trick to block His Programs....Usual BS in Washington.....they should all be fired!!

They need to do everything they legally can to block (and throw out) the America-damaging shyster who's in the Oval Office.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

The legality of the executive order covering ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? You must be a barber by trade the way you like to split hairs.

No, it's more like log splitting since the issue is that big and obvious. Trump's executive order is not about illegal immigrants. It's about placing a blanket ban on would-be legal immigrants from 6 countries. People who have gone through all the paperwork and vetting. So it is absolutely not about illegal immigrants.

Edited March 14, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[little mary sunshine]

52 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

'Doing their thing' ....like upholding some of the basic tenets of what it means to be American.  One of those tenets is to not discriminate based on religion or ethnicity.  Everyone debating the immigration issue in D.C. is either an immigrant or the son/daughter of immigrants.  

 

They need to do everything they legally can to block (and throw out) the America-damaging shyster who's in the Oval Office.

American damaging shyster...HRC Lost!!!

[ilostmypassword]

On 3/10/2017 at 8:41 PM, little mary sunshine said:

A Health Care Plan will be formulated so the

working people can afford the premiums, also,

Hopefully ,the Republican Congress will read this 

Plan and not push it through blind like the

Polesie gang of thieves did.

Really?

[Buckwheat Flour]

On 3/14/2017 at 9:03 AM, ilostmypassword said:

Really?

No... both parties mean well, but doing well in the aggregate is measured differently. So what was original the topic again?

[webfact]

UPDATE:

Hawaii judge halts Trump's new travel ban before it can go into effect

By Dan Levine and Mica Rosenberg

REUTERS

 

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin answers questions from the media at the U.S. District Court Ninth Circuit after presenting his arguments after filing an amended lawsuit against President Donald Trump's new travel ban in Honolulu, Hawaii, March 15, 2017. REUTERS/Hugh Gentry

 

HONOLULU/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge in Hawaii dealt another legal blow to President Donald Trump on Wednesday, issuing an emergency halt to his revised travel ban just hours before it was set to go into effect early on Thursday.

 

Full story: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/973789-hawaii-judge-halts-trumps-new-travel-ban-before-it-can-go-into-effect/

 

[Buckwheat Flour]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

UPDATE:

Hawaii judge halts Trump's new travel ban before it can go into effect

By Dan Levine and Mica Rosenberg

REUTERS

 

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin answers questions from the media at the U.S. District Court Ninth Circuit after presenting his arguments after filing an amended lawsuit against President Donald Trump's new travel ban in Honolulu, Hawaii, March 15, 2017. REUTERS/Hugh Gentry

 

HONOLULU/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge in Hawaii dealt another legal blow to President Donald Trump on Wednesday, issuing an emergency halt to his revised travel ban just hours before it was set to go into effect early on Thursday.

 

Full story: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/973789-hawaii-judge-halts-trumps-new-travel-ban-before-it-can-go-into-effect/

This is a tug-of-war that will probably be decided by the Supreme Court.  However, an act of religious terrorism committed by any passport holder suspected of having even remote ties to the affected countries could destroy future discrimination arguments opposing an Executive Order issued under the banner of "national security" My point is a Federal judge might believe his political activism is a righteous cause, but it might have unintended consequences beyond the age of Trump-ism. 

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, Buckwheat Flour said:

This is a tug-of-war that will probably be decided by the Supreme Court.  However, an act of religious terrorism committed by any passport holder suspected of having even remote ties to the affected countries could destroy future discrimination arguments opposing an Executive Order issued under the banner of "national security" My point is a Federal judge might believe his political activism is a righteous cause, but it might have unintended consequences beyond the age of Trump-ism. 

By calling a judge's decision against Trump "political activism" you've already revealed where your prejudices lie.

[simple1]

4 hours ago, Buckwheat Flour said:

This is a tug-of-war that will probably be decided by the Supreme Court.  However, an act of religious terrorism committed by any passport holder suspected of having even remote ties to the affected countries could destroy future discrimination arguments opposing an Executive Order issued under the banner of "national security" My point is a Federal judge might believe his political activism is a righteous cause, but it might have unintended consequences beyond the age of Trump-ism. 

More to the point is Trump's loudmouth statements during the elections concerning Muslims that have now backfired due to Constitutional Law. Trump today doubled down on his anti Muslim sentiments, the man has / is creating his own problems. One can only conclude the job of President of the USA is beyond Trump's emotional and intellectual capabilities. IMO Trump is creating an 'idiocracy'.

[Rhys]

Quote

 

 

Well somewhat understandable, but they are still dealing with the Hawaiian Sovereignty Issue.  The missionaries, the sailors, and Capt Cook intrusion of the Hawaiian nation and culture, provided a rationale for this political action?

Long live the aina

[Buckwheat Flour]

22 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

By calling a judge's decision against Trump "political activism" you've already revealed where your prejudices lie.

Good observation but what point are you trying to make?

 

Are you simply stating that, unlike yourself, I should not have any political predilections, especially if my perspective doesn't agree with yours? 

 

The judges ruling is normal, and couldn't remotely be seen as political activism?  With reference to the below link, I think you'll find this article objectively address this question. You can decide for yourself but this is clearly not normal for a district judge to involve themselves is such matters.

http://www.vox.com/2017/2/7/14514792/trump-muslim-ban-lawsuit-judge

 

In case you missed my point, I believe it is quite possible that this judicial action is on tenuous ground constitutionally. The entire matter hinges on proving the President’s action is motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice and in no way is based on national security.  In your world that might appear to be the case, but if the Supreme Court rules otherwise, or events that I mentioned were to occur, it will be very difficult to contest future presidential actions if he/she chooses to deem them matters of national security.