January 28, 2022

Volume XII, Number 28

Advertisement
Advertisement

January 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 26, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 25, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order Against Enforcement of January 27, 2017 Executive Order; Agencies Cooperating

On February 3, 2017,  U.S. District Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle issued a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) halting the enforcement of the Executive Order (“EO”) “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” signed by President Trump on January 27th, 2017.  The TRO was issued in connection with State of Washington, et al v. Donald Trump, et al (C17-0141JLR), filed with the Court earlier this week.

The TRO is effective nationwide and prohibits the enforcement of the ban on entry of nationals of the impacted countries with nonimmigrant (temporary) and immigrant (permanent) visas, refugees, and the permanent ban on Syrian refugees.

In granting the TRO, the Court found the State of Washington, and the other States in the U.S. have shown that the litigation against the EO is likely to be successful, that the States will suffer irreparable harm with respect to familial relationships, employment, travel, business, and education due to the enforcement of the EO.

It has been reported that U.S. Customs and Border Protections (CBP) has informed the airlines that they may board foreign nationals of the impacted countries who have visas and that they will be allowed entry to the U.S. in compliance with the TRO.  It has also been reported that the State Department has reversed its prior provisional revocation of valid visas of the impacted foreign nationals, allowing them to utilize these visas for entry to the U.S.

On February 4, 2017, the White House released a statement that they intend to seek a Stay of the TRO immediately and consider the provisions of the EO to be lawful and within the President’s authority.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved. National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 35
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Nataliya Rymer, Greenberg Traurig Law Firm, Philadelphia, Immigration Law Attorney
Of Counsel

Nataliya Rymer focuses her practice on employment-based immigration and compliance. She represents clients in a wide range of employment-based immigrant and non-immigrant matters, including professionals, managers and executives, artists and entertainers, treaty traders and investors, immigrant investors, and persons of extraordinary ability.

Nataliya also has experience working with employers on I-9 employment verification matters as well as H-1B and LCA compliance-related issues. She counsels employers on due diligence issues, including...

215-988-7881
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement