November 20, 2018

November 20, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 19, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Ninth Circuit Court Rules Against Key Provisions of Executive Order Regarding Travel Suspension

As detailed in our previous alert on this issue, on May 15, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments relating to the legality of Sections 2 and 6 of the “Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” issued on March 6, 2017, (the “new E.O.”).

On June 12, 2017, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the United States District Court for Hawaii’s March 29, 2017, nationwide preliminary injunction as to key provisions of the new E.O. The court analyzed the legality of the new E.O. under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, as opposed to weighing constitutional considerations, which other courts have done. Specifically, the court held that the identified reasons for the travel suspensions under the new E.O. do not support the conclusion that the entry of nationals from the six designated countries would be harmful to national interests. The court concluded that the President, in issuing the new E.O., exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress, and noted that “immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show.” State of Hawaii, et al. v. Trump at p. 2. Notably, the court held that the District of Hawaii erred by enjoining the entirety of Sections 2 and 6 of the new E.O., particularly the portions that pertain to interagency review. Accordingly, the court vacated the portion of the injunction that prevents the United States government from conducting internal reviews. The court also modified the scope of the injunction by lifting it as to the President, concluding that the extraordinary remedy of enjoining the President in the performance of his official duties was not appropriate.

During a June 12, 2017, press briefing, the White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, indicated that the administration is reviewing the Ninth Circuit’s decision and expressed continued confidence that the new E.O. is lawful and ultimately will be upheld by the United States Supreme Court.

As noted in our previous alert on this issue, the Fourth Circuit on May 25, 2017, also ruled against the new E.O. On June 1, 2017, the United States Department of Justice filed an emergency request to the United States Supreme Court asking that it reinstate the new E.O. and hear the Government’s appeal of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling against the new E.O. On June 14, 2017, the President issued a Presidential Memorandum in which he clarifies that the effective date of Section 2 and 6 of the new E.O. will be the date and time at which the injunctions are lifted or stayed.

Copyright © 2018, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Jayde Ashford Brown, Andrews Kurth, management side labor litigation lawyer, employment matters attorney
Associate

Jayde Ashford Brown represents corporate clients in management-side labor and employment matters arising under federal and state law, including, but not limited to Title VII, the FLSA, the FMLA, the ADA, the ADEA, and workers compensation under Section 451 of the Texas Labor Code. In addition to litigation, Jayde counsels clients on best practices relating to hiring and termination decisions, employment policies and employee investigations, and the OFCCP and related AAP obligations for federal contractors and subcontractors. Jayde also prepares and negotiates separation...

214-659-4719