An analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s argument yesterday on President Trump’s revised Refugee EO in Hawaii v. Trump.
Peter Margulies is a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, where he teaches Immigration Law, National Security Law and Professional Responsibility. He is the author of Law’s Detour: Justice Displaced in the Bush Administration (New York: NYU Press, 2010).
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
The Fourth Circuit Argument on the Refugee EO: Second-Guessing the President or Safeguarding Individual Rights?
Yesterday's argument placed two opposition options before the Fourth Circuit (1) narrowly construe the President’s authority and read Trump’s comments in the worst possible light, or (2) cultivate a measure of deference.
The most recent ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii exceeds the bounds of Establishment Clause and clashes with both Congress’s delegation of power and the President’s Article II authority.
Upholding the Revised Refugee Executive Order: A Virginia District Court Clarifies the Establishment Clause Issues
An analysis of Virginia U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga's recent decision in Sarsour v. Trump.
The court decisions in both Maryland and Hawaii moves insufficient heed to the need for a measure of judicial deference to the political branches in navigating the turbulent seas of foreign affairs and immigration policy.
Wednesday was an active day in the courts for President Trump’s Refugee Executive Order (EO), as a U.S. district court in Hawaii issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking the revised EO issued less than two weeks ago.
The revised refugee Executive Order (EO) issued today (see revised EO here and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fact sheet here) places the administration in a materially better legal position before the courts.