Supreme Court Issues Orders on Ban 3.0: What This Means

by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and founding director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law - University Park, Sirine Shebaya, senior staff attorney, Muslim Advocates and , and Abed Ayoub, legal director, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

*This piece was originally posted on Medium

What happened at the Supreme Court? On December 4, the Supreme Court issued orders staying the injunctions placed on certain aspects of Ban 3.0 by federal district courts in Hawaii and Maryland. What this means is the third version of the ban can take full effect pending a decision of the Government’s appeal in the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals and pending a decision of the Government’s petition to the Supreme Court to hear the case. Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg would have denied the application giving rise to these orders.

Did the Supreme Court give a reason for these orders? No. The Court did not provide a specific reason for the orders beyond the fact that both cases would be heard on an “expedited basis” at the appellate courts. This means that the Supreme Court expects the decisions soon after oral arguments which are scheduled for December 6 at the Ninth Circuit and December 8 at the Fourth Circuit.

Did the Supreme Court Rule on the Legality of the ban? No. The Supreme Court did not make a decision on the legality of the ban. The legal challenges to Ban 3.0 have been wide ranging and were successful at the Hawaii and Maryland courts. The challenges have been constitutional and statutory. Whereas the Hawaii court focused on the statutory arguments to conclude that Ban 3.0 violates the immigration statute by denying immigrant visas based on nationality, the Maryland court focused on the likelihood that Ban 3.0 violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What about pending cases at the courts of appeals? The Government appealed the Maryland and Hawaii decisions. Oral arguments are scheduled for December 6 in the Ninth Circuit and for December 8 in the Fourth Circuit.

Who is covered by Ban 3.0?

  • Chad, Libya and Yemen: all immigrants and those entering as tourists or business travelers
  • Iran: all immigrants and nonimmigrants, EXCEPT F, J and M visa holders (extra scrutiny)
  • North Korea and Syria: all immigrants and nonimmigrants
  • Somalia: immigrants (and nonimmigrants subject to extra scrutiny)
  • Venezuela: certain nonimmigrants government officials and their family members

What is the scope of the ban? These suspensions only apply to people who:

  • are outside the United States on the applicable effective date
  • do not have a valid visa on the effective date
  • do not qualify for a visa or other travel document by the terms of the Proclamation

Who is exempt from Ban 3.0?

  • Lawful permanent residents (green card holders)
  • Foreign nationals admitted or paroled to the United States on or after the effective date
  • Foreign nationals with travel documents that are not visas that are valid before or issued after the effective date
  • Dual nationals traveling on a passport that is not one of the affected countries
  • Those travelling on a diplomatic or related visa
  • Foreign nationals who have already been granted asylum, refugees who have already been granted admittance, and those who have been granted withholding of removal, advanced parole, or protections under the Convention Against Torture

If I am covered by the ban can I still enter the country? A consular officer may, on a case-by-case basis and within their discretion, grant a waiver to affected immigrants for certain reasons. The person seeking entry must prove that:

  • denying entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship;
  • entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States; and
  • entry would be in the national interest.

Please seek the advice of an immigration attorney before seeking a waiver.

What should I do if I am from one of the eight countries, outside the United States and want to travel to the United States? If you are from one of the eight countries, are covered by the ban and do not yet have a visa then cannot obtain one at this time, unless you qualify for a waiver. If you are from one of the countries and do have a valid visa on the effective date (which as of this writing is unclear) you may be able to enter the United States. If you choose to travel, please talk to an immigration attorney and arrange for assistance by a lawyer or advocate at the airport you are flying into. Finally, please make sure you know and understand your rights.

What should I do if I am from one of the eight countries, am in the United States with a valid visa and want to travel outside the country? The third version of the ban states that no visas will be revoked and that those with a valid visa on the effective date (which as of this writing is unclear) are not covered by the ban. Nevertheless, travel outside the United States at this time carries a lot of risk. If you plan to travel, please visit an immigration attorney so you can understand the risks and responsibilities of leaving the United States. Also, please arrange for assistance by a lawyer or advocate at the airport you are flying back into.

Where can I find more resources?

Special Registration, Deferred Action and Prosecutorial (In)Discretion

by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and founding director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law - University Park

*This piece was originally posted on Medium

Witness Fatiha Elgharib, who has lived in Ohio for more than two decades, serves as primary caregiver to a United States citizen child suffering from Down Syndrome, is married to the breadwinner, and faces imminent deportation on November 27. Fatiha became a target of immigration following her fight and support of her husband during the course of NSEERS –a Muslim registration program enacted after the attacks of 9/11. Fatiha’s story highlights the ongoing residual impact of NSEERS and raises important questions about the legitimacy of using a now defunct and ill-conceived policy to generate new deportations.

Early into the Presidential campaign, I lamented over then candidate Donald J. Trump’s proposal of a complete shutdown of Muslim immigration and described the flashbacks it had to ill-conceived policies created after the attacks of 9/11 against Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities and in the name of nationality security. In the months that followed, I responded to a mountain of inquiries about the parallels between the President’s proposed Muslim registry and a 9/11 program known as “NSEERS” or special registration.

Special registration is a program announced by former Attorney General Ashcroft in 2002 whose legacy is marked with chaos, discrimination, and scars worn by individuals and families to this very day. The most controversial portion of NSEERS enlisted men from 25 majority Muslim countries (one exception: North Korea) to report to local immigration offices for interrogations, fingerprints, and photographs. The residual effects of NSEERS were significant as those who came forward voluntarily to comply or were unfamiliar with the program years later, faced charges, detention, and deportation. Following a decade plus long fight to dismantle the legal framework of NSEERS, the Obama administration rescinded the framework in late December 2016.

Less than one month later, now-President Trump signed his first of many Executive Orders categorically suspending the entry of noncitizens from seven countries, all of which have Muslim populations of 90% of more. In response, lawyers, advocates and community leaders have responded to these bans with legal excellence and significant advocacy. While orders to ban entry differ in form from a registry program, the message both send to Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities is the same: exclusion and discrimination under a proxy of national security.

Enter Fatiha’s case: the heartbreaking intersection of the near-sighted and ill-advised NSEERS program; and Trump’s immigration policies.

The heartbreak is not limited to NSEERS but to this administration’s misuse of prosecutorial discretion in Fatiha’s case. For decades the administration has used a form of prosecutorial discretion called “deferred action” to protect mothers like Fatiha who have lived in the United States for several years and serve as primary caregivers to children born here.

Prosecutorial discretion refers to a decision by the Department of Homeland Security to enforce or not enforce the immigration law against a person. In a world of limited enforcement dollars and cases involving multiple equities like long term residence, the use of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration system is inevitable.

Deferred action data from 2016 reveals that most deferred action cases processed and granted were for medical reasons. Having studied thousands of deferred action cases throughout my research, it is without question that someone like Fatiha who is herself a long-time resident, without a criminal history and caring a for United States citizen child with Downs Syndrome should be protected through formal relief or in the alternative a deferred action. The Department of Homeland Security has the authority and the responsibility to use discretion wisely and judiciously at every stage of the immigration enforcement process.

If the regular lesson is that “two wrongs do not make a right” I might conclude that “two wrongs” (NSEERS and potential deportation) adds to a broken immigration system while needlessly separating a family who call America home.

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia is the Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and the Director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights at Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law and the author of Beyond Deportation: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Cases (NYU Press, 2015), now available in paperback.

The Latest Muslim Ban Litigation

by Ryan J. Suto, J.D., Government Relations Manager, Arab American Institute

Two federal court rulings this week constitute a third strike for the Trump administration’s attempt at enforcing a Muslim ban. The Administration issued an indefinite Muslim ban late last month, Proclamation 9645, prompting the Supreme Court to rule moot litigation regarding the previous, temporary version of the ban. However, hours before the new ban was set to take effect on October 18, US District Courts in Hawai‘i and Maryland halted a majority of the policy from taking effect, largely arguing that the new indefinite ban does not avoid the statutory and Constitutional infirmaries of its temporary predecessors.

Rulings on the Latest Muslim Ban

On Tuesday Judge Watson in Hawai‘i ruled against the government in Hawai‘i v. Trump, granting a temporary restraining order against the policy with respect to the ban’s listed Muslim-majority countries. Early Monday morning Judge Chuang in Maryland entered a preliminary injunction for same countries in favor of plaintiffs in IRAP et. al v. Trump.

Both judges found that the Proclamation over-stepped the President’s authority in the realm of immigration delegated by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Specifically, both judges held the Muslim ban in violation of the Act’s nondiscrimination clause, 8 USC 1152, and delineated grounds for entry restrictions by a President, 8 USC 1182(f).

Judge Watson felt the Proclamation’s reasons for arriving at the list of countries banned were, “inconsistent with and do not fit the restrictions that the order actually imposes,” and that the Proclamation “improperly uses nationality as a proxy for risk.” He further lists three main reasons why the Proclamation’s evidentiary findings fall short: it presents no evidence that nationality alone is linked to a propensity to commit terrorism; there is no explanation as to why existing law is insufficient; and there are “internal incoherencies that markedly undermine [the Proclamation’s] stated ‘national security’ rationale”.

Judge Chuang ruled on the INA as well, but also felt the Proclamation, like the previous bans, violates the Lemon Test of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by having a religious-based motive driving the policy. The judged noted, “...the inclusion of two non-majority Muslim nations, North Korea and Venezuela, does not persuasively show a lack of religious purpose behind the Proclamation.”

Next Steps

At present, Trump’s Proclamation remains in force with respect to only specified government officials from Venezuela and the exceedingly rare North Korean national who attempts to immigrate to the US. Nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia may enter the US subject to pre-existing immigration law. This may change, however. The status quo rests on a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The government will likely appeal these measures, and full hearings on the merits are unlikely to, but may, produce different results in either the District or Appeals courts.

The Trump administration has fought judicial challenges to previous iterations of the Muslim ban tooth and nail. So it is no surprise that the White House has already announced that the “Department of Justice will vigorously defend the President’s lawful action,” which DOJ plans on doing “in an expeditious manner.” The government will face uphill battles in front of the respective Courts of Appeals for the cases, the 4th and 9th Circuits. Both appellate courts ruled against the previous iterations of the Muslim ban, and both of the most recent District Court decisions outlined above quote heavily from those previous Appeals Court rulings as relevant precedent. Facing likely failure at the appellate level, the government is surely preparing for the Supreme Court.

While the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the substance of the Muslim ban, its June ruling narrowing similar lower court injunctions to those above included explicit deference to the President’s national security claims, perhaps tipping the Court’s hand as to how it may rule on the case more broadly. Like Judge Watson, any substantive ruling by the Supreme Court will likely attempt to avoid ruling on Constitutional grounds if not necessary. However, relying on statute may force the Supreme Court into an uncomfortable tension with Supreme Court precedent such as Galvan v. Press 347 U.S. 522 (1954), which affirmed the INA and the “broad power of Congress over the admission and deportation of aliens”.

Forecasting how nine justices will rule is notoriously difficult, and important stages of litigation lay ahead before the merits of the Muslim ban reach the high court again. When the ban inevitably comes before the Supreme Court again, the justices should remember, as the lower courts have, that the safety, equality, dignity, and familial integrity of millions of Muslims here and abroad await a judiciary grappling with discrimination under the guise of national security and the limits of executive authority.

Evading Review: The Administration’s Muslim Ban Arguments

by Ryan J. Suto, J.D., Government Relations Manager, Arab American InstitutePhoto:

The Trump Administration’s consolidated Muslim Ban cases, Trump v. IRAP and Trump v. Hawaii, were set for oral arguments today, October 10. However, the president released a Proclamation late last month to replace the challenged Executive Order, prompting the Supreme Court to remove the case from the argument calendar and request briefs on October 5 detailing whether litigation surrounding the now overridden and expired Executive Order is moot and thus should be denied further consideration.

The Government’s filing asserted that this case reaches the very definition of moot, arguing that the plaintiffs are asking the Court to address an issue of no practical importance by litigating an expired law. Further, the new Proclamation differs in substance and cannot be considered a mere continuation of the previous Executive Order. The Government writes, “If respondents (or anyone else) believes the Proclamation violates their rights, they can file new challenges...”

This simple and strict view of mootness is an attractive argument, and will allow the conservative members of the bench the rhetorical ammunition needed to side with the Government in revoking certiorari from the case entirely. This would avoid a substantive Constitutional assessment of the Administration’s Muslim Ban, requiring a new round of litigation to once again reach the Court. 

Both filings from the ACLU and the State of Hawaii focus on the persuasive argument that the Government voluntarily created conditions for mootness, an exception in the case law. They argue that the Government “chose not to seek expedited merits review that could have been completed before the 90-day ban expired,” “chose to issue a proclamation just two weeks before oral argument,” and “reinstated effectively the same conduct in a new form.” The plaintiffs clearly felt this was the best argument for the Court, as it is detailed extensively in both filings.

There is another exception to mootness that received little attention from the plaintiffs, however. Legal questions which are capable of repetition but are brief enough to be considered moot by the time they reach the Court are not able to evade judicial review. As the Government notes, this exception applies “where ‘the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration,’ and ‘there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subject to the same action again.’” However, in reality the Proclamation is substantially the same policy as the previous Executive Order, showing that a vast majority of the impacted parties will indeed be subject to the same actions. Indeed, this exception brings to the fore one of most important policy aspects of this case.

The Proclamation itself allows the Government to add and remove countries from the banned list at will without external review, and further allows for the granting of individual waivers to the travel ban. Based on habitual Administration rhetoric, there is no reason to believe Trump will not add additional Muslim countries to the list, such as Turkey. Importantly, these flexible policies allow the Government to grant exceptions to any potential litigant’s family or home country in an effort to avoid standing and claim mootness. In fact, the Government showed a willingness to use such a tactic in claiming mootness in Thursday’s filing, arguing, “...the claims of the only two individual respondents whom the courts of appeals found to have standing became moot wholly apart from the Order’s expiration when their relatives received visas.”

If the Supreme Court sides with the Government in ruling existing Muslim Ban challenges moot, the Administration will continue to impose a Constitutionally dubious and unchallenged travel ban on any individual from the specified countries and classes who is not able or willing to file suit against the Government. More broadly, if the Court rules that the 90-day Muslim Ban can evade substantive constitutional review, the precedent is set that this, or any future, administration is free to violate the Constitution so long as it is done on a temporary basis.

*Photo credit: By Rhododendrites (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (], via Wikimedia Commons

We’re Challenging Muslim Ban 3.0, Which Is Just More of the Same

Muslim Ban Airport

by Cody Wofsy, Staff Attorney and Skadden Fellow, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project

*This piece was originally posted on ACLU's Speak Freely blog

President Trump signed the third version of his Muslim ban executive order on Sept. 24, about two weeks before the case involving the second version of the ban was to be argued before the Supreme Court. This action led the court to cancel oral arguments on the earlier version so that the parties could address whether the new order renders the Trump administration’s appeal moot.

In the meantime, the ACLU has returned to the federal district court to challenge the new order, which is set to go into effect on Oct. 18.

The new ban indefinitely bans people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, five overwhelmingly Muslim countries that were also targeted by the earlier versions. The order emphasizes that countries are being banned because they have not cooperated in providing information for visa vetting. Yet Somalia remains banned even though it does live up to the government’s new visa cooperation standards.

The order adds restrictions on Chad — another Muslim-majority nation — along with North Korea and Venezuela. The inclusion of two countries that are not Muslim majority doesn’t even qualify as a fig leaf. North Korea accounted for just 61 affected visas last year — out of more than 75 million visitors to the United States.

And Venezuela as a country is not banned in any meaningful sense. Only certain Venezuelan government officials and their families are affected, and those individuals are only barred from obtaining tourist and temporary business visas. In contrast, nearly every single person from the Muslim-majority countries is barred from getting a green card, no matter what family, business, or other U.S. connections he or she has.

The total numbers underscore the scope of suffering the new ban will impose, if allowed to go into effect, and the hugely disproportionate impact it will have on Muslims. According to an analysis of the number of U.S. visas granted by category in 2016, the new ban would bar tens of thousands of individuals from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia annually from obtaining green cards.

Many of these are people coming to the U.S. to join their husbands, wives, parents, and children who are citizens or lawful permanent residents. These families would be separated indefinitely. By contrast, the impact on people from countries newly included in the ban is small: 40 immigrants from Chad can expected to be blocked, nine from North Korea, and none at all from Venezuela.

The new ban, like the old ones, is illegal. The March version of the ban is unconstitutional because, as the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognized, the ban violates the Establishment Clause by disfavoring a specific religion. “When the government chooses sides on religious issues,” the court explained, “the inevitable result is hatred, disrespect and even contempt towards those who fall on the wrong side of the line.”

The court noted that there was a “direct link” between Trump’s “numerous campaign statements promising a Muslim ban that targets territories,” the original ban he signed in January — “only one week into office executing that exact plan” — and the second, “watered down” version of the ban, as Trump called it.

As a candidate, Donald Trump posted a statement “On Preventing Muslim Immigration” calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” He claimed that “Islam hates us” and that there are “problems with Muslims coming into the country.” When this was met with outrage, Mr. Trump told the world that he would achieve the same goal without explicitly naming Muslims.

“People were so upset when I used the word Muslim,” he explained. “Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.”

This third Muslim ban is yet another attempt to follow through on that campaign pledge and to paper over the president’s plain religious animus, which he has never disavowed. The courts have not been fooled and have rightly seen the previous versions of the order as unreasonable, immoral, and unconstitutional. The same is true of this one.


The Attempt to Make the Muslim Ban Permanent

by Ryan J. Suto, J.D., Government Relations Manager, Arab American Institute

On September 24, the Trump White House released a new Presidential Proclamation effective October 18, which essentially makes permanent the temporary Muslim/refugee Ban the president signed earlier this year. The Proclamation, like Trump’s previous Muslim Ban actions, relies on the fundamental assumption that foreigners, and specifically Muslims and Arabs, pose a heightened threat. Arguing “...foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism, or otherwise pose a safety threat…” the Administration holds tightly to creating xenophobic fears, despite no existing evidence to show that foreign nationals commit crimes at greater rates than citizens.

Whereas the temporary travel ban, EO 13780, included Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, the Sept. 24 proclamation removed Sudan and added Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela. It also added nuance by providing a rationale to the Administration’s additions to the banned countries list, something we hadn’t seen with previous iterations.

While flawed at best, the Administration will undoubtedly point to their nuanced process, the various exceptions to the travel restrictions, the allowance for case-by-case waivers, and the addition of non-Muslim majority countries as reasons why the new ban is rational, objective, and constitutional. However, each of these defenses are lacking.

First, the establishment of the process by which the list of countries was created is important for distancing the Administration’s policy from their campaign conclusion that Muslims must be banned from entering the US. This Proclamation argues national security is a compelling state interest and that a travel ban is necessary because technological deficiencies prohibit the US from ensuring the identity of travelers which threatens national security. However, nowhere in the Proclamation does the Administration show that the claimed technological deficiencies, even if they do exist, actually lead to national security threats. At no point does the Proclamation note an instance or statistic to show that the lack of such technologies lead to increased terrorism threats.

Next, the Administration will point to the various exceptions to the travel restrictions and the allowance for case-by-case waivers to show the ban is not a blanket policy, but is narrowly-tailored to target individuals who pose heightened risks. Such provisions are insufficient to protect innocent foreign nationals because the Administration is nonetheless creating a presumption of danger: any individuals from these countries are presumed terrorists unless shown otherwise. Importantly, this presumption existed in the original Muslim Ban while specifically excluding non-Muslims. Further, the exceptions and case-by-case waivers are the same as they were under the temporary Muslim Ban, which nonetheless saw CBP agents harass and detain those who clearly fell under those exceptions, including US citizens who happen to be Arab or Muslim. The Administration’s thinly-veiled attempt to put a neutral face on a discriminatory policy nonetheless had the discriminatory impact it desired.

Last, Trump will claim that the addition of Venezuela and North Korea prove that the policy does not target Muslims. These additions are cosmetic and designed to hide the ban’s original intent. In North Korea travel to the US is already illegal, and most North Koreans seeking refuge in the US do so on South Korean passports. As for Venezuela, the ban involves a limited set of government officials and their families. This means that Muslim travelers remain the focus of the policy and the group most impacted.

Importantly, under the Proclamation there is no stated venue for individuals to challenge their treatment, and the Administration can, at will, expand the ban to broader classes of individuals or more countries. Allowing the Trump Administration to ban travel from these eight countries under this Proclamation opens the door for the ability to ban entire ethnic or religious groups without individual redress.

Regardless of how the Court handles the existing dispute over the first Muslim Ban, the permanent version via proclamation explicitly aims to limit the presence of the Arab and Muslim populations in the US through targeted immigration control. Such policies and intentions are evocative of the shameful Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and subsequent discriminatory US immigration policies, which banned the immigration of Chinese laborers to the US because they “endanger[ ] the good order of certain localities”. Contemporary US Senator George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts called the Chinese Exclusion Act “nothing less than the legalization of racial discrimination.” He was correct then, and the same is correctly said of the most recent  Muslim Ban Proclamation. Congress must now act again to end these bigoted, xenophobic policies emanating from the White House. Our country deserves nothing less.