Legal Challenges to the “Muslim Travel Ban” Began Immediately

Photo: Brent Olson / Shutterstock, Inc.

On January 27, President Trump issued an executive order barring travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—and the nation responded largely by protesting. However, protesting cannot undo the executive order. For that, we look to the constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances between the three branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial.

The legal battle against the executive order began almost immediately, with four judges issuing rulings on aspects of the ban within hours of its being put into place.

In Seattle, Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a temporary restraining order challenging the ban on the basis of the fact that Washington had suffered harm from the ban—for example, students and faculty at state-funded universities were stranded overseas.

The challenge was brought by the state of Washington. Later, the state of Minnesota joined the challenge. Judge Robart ruled that the states have legal standing to sue the federal government, which lays the groundwork for helping attorneys general around the country to challenge the Trump administration on an array of issues.

Robart also questioned the administration’s use of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. as a justification for the ban. He said that no terrorist attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by people from the seven countries affected by the travel ban. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”

The American Civil Liberties Union praised the judicial efforts, which were happening in New York, Boston, and Alexandria, Virginia, as well. The organization is also representing the plaintiffs in one of these cases. “The courts can serve as a bulwark against these excesses, said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “Litigation is going to be a key tool for either undoing these policies or slowing them down.

The president of the U.S. does have a great deal of power to control immigration. One federal law allows the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants” if he determines that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

However, to add to the confusion, another law seems to limit that power: “No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

The cases brought by the judges in Washington, New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia may well be argued all the way up to the Supreme Court. However, that could take several years.