Earlier this week, the Trump Administration requested that the Supreme Court block a Hawaii federal judge’s recent injunction against the President’s National Security Proclamation. The Proclamation, issued in September, was intended to start enhanced vetting procedures of foreign nationals from eight countries (Chad, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, North Korea, Venezuela, and Yemen) until those countries comply with our security criteria. Those countries are deficient in their identity-management and information-sharing efforts regarding their nationals, and we have continuing concerns with terrorism in many of those countries.
In October, the Hawaii judge blocked the full implementation of the Proclamation, and the Trump Administration filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Last week, the Ninth Circuit, in response to the Administration’s motion to stay, limited the Hawaii judge’s injunction, but did not stop the entire injunction from taking effect. That ruling prompted the Administration to turn to the Supreme Court and ask the Court to allow the Proclamation to be fully implemented as the legal proceedings against it continue. We expect a ruling from the Supreme Court on the stay request in the coming days.
The Hawaii judge’s injunction is not the only injunction against the Proclamation. In a separate case, a Maryland federal judge also enjoined the Proclamation. The Trump Administration has requested the governing appellate court in that case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, to stay the Maryland injunction. If need be, the Administration plans to ask the Supreme Court to stay that injunction as well.
This is the second time this year the Supreme Court has considered lawsuits challenging the President’s efforts to protect our national security. Earlier this year, after the same two appellate courts upheld injunctions imposed against the President’s National Security Executive Order, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the matter. But, before oral argument took place, the Supreme Court dismissed both cases as moot because the terms of the Executive Order had expired.
That Executive Order was designed to temporarily pause entry into the United States of nationals from certain countries while our government conducted a worldwide review to determine which foreign governments provide us with sufficient information about their nationals before we allow their entry. As a result of the worldwide review, the Presidential Proclamation was issued this past September.
The American Center for Law and Justice will continue to defend the Proclamation as we did the National Security Executive Order. In the Fourth Circuit appeal, we recently filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief urging the court to vacate the Maryland judge’s injunction. The brief was filed with the support of the ACLJ’s Committee to Defend Our National Security from Terror, which represents more than 278,000 Americans who have stood in support of the President’s efforts to protect this nation from the entry of foreign terrorists.
Despite how the Supreme Court rules on the Administration’s requested stay of the Hawaii and, if necessary, Maryland injunctions, the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit will continue to consider both cases. Those appellate courts plan to hear oral argument in the two cases in early December.
We will keep you posted as the legal challenges against the Proclamation proceed.
As we aggressively fight to protect our national security and Christians, we urgently need your support. Have your gift DOUBLED today. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.
Border security has assumed center stage in the wake of hundreds of Central American migrants overwhelming federal and local Mexican police in Tijuana, and storming the United States border at San Ysidro port of entry near San Diego, California as part of an effort to force their way in the U.S. At...
On May 8th of this year, President Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran Nuclear Deal. The President took this action as the flawed agreement only postponed—it did not stop—Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. It also did not address...
Who would have thought just a few short years ago that both Democrats and Republicans, who saw securing our southern border as an important issue and a point of agreement between the two parties, would be in a political battle over the matter? As the President and GOP members of Congress call for...
The historic five-hour meeting between President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un ended with a signed agreement between the two leaders. It is not a treaty, as it does not contain any details as to implementation or a way forward in order to bring about the general goals in the signed agreement.