State of Washington v. Trump

Date: February 7, 2017

Place: United States

Summary

State of Washington v. Trump is a US court case challenging major provisions of Executive Order 13769, the "travel ban" issued on January 27, 2017, by President Donald Trump to temporarily suspend immigration and travel to the United States by individuals from seven Muslim-majority nations. The lawsuit was one of dozens filed against the travel ban, but it was the first filed by a state. On February 3, the presiding judge in the case issued the first nationwide restraining order halting implementation of the ban, allowing travel into the United States to continue as usual. The Trump administration appealed the court's action, which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Key Events

  • January 27, 2017—Trump issues Executive Order 13769 banning immigration or travel into the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries.
  • January 30, 2017—Washington State attorney general Bob Ferguson files a lawsuit at the US District Court in Seattle, asking among other things for an emergency temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the travel ban.
  • February 1, 2017—The state of Minnesota joins Washington's case against the travel ban.
  • February 3, 2017—Judge James Robart issues a temporary restraining order prohibiting federal authorities from enforcing portions of the executive order.
  • February 9, 2017—The Ninth Circuit Court upholds Robart's restraining order against the travel ban.
  • March 6, 2017—Trump issues a revised travel ban, Executive Order 13780, which replaces Executive Order 13769.

Status

Washington has moved to block the revised travel ban as well, and as of April 2017, Judge Robart was still considering the request. Meanwhile, the revised travel ban has been blocked by court rulings in civil actions undertaken by the states of Hawaii and Maryland. Legal challenges to the revised travel ban were based on similar arguments that were used against the initial version of the travel ban issued in January. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, is scheduled to hear arguments on the case in May. In April, a fifteen-state panel formed in support of Trump's travel ban, led by legislators from Texas, while seventeen states plus the District of Columbia have filed briefs in support of the Washington case against the ban. In addition to claims that the revised travel ban, like the original executive order, violates constitutional principles, a number of state governments, corporations, and educational institutions have argued that the travel ban poses an economic threat to the United States. A study released in April showed that students from the six nations currently included in the proposed travel ban contribute $500 million to the US economy each year.

In-Depth Overview

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump claimed that, if elected, he would reform immigration to protect the United States from the threat of terrorism and would, temporarily, ban Muslims from entering the United States. After winning the election, Trump asked a team of experts to create a lawful system for barring the entry of people who posed a threat to the United States, seeking to change the language so that it focused on threat level rather than religion. This effort resulted in Executive Order 13769, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, which was issued on January 27, 2017. The order placed a temporary (90-day) ban on immigration/visitation from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It also suspended the US refugee program for all applicants for a period of 120 days, as well as an indefinite ban on refugee applicants from Syria, where the ongoing civil war has created a worldwide refugee crisis.

Nationwide protests against the travel ban began immediately, with thousands marching against the travel ban in cities and at airports around the nation. On January 30, Washington State attorney general Bob Ferguson filed a civil suit against Donald Trump and other members of his administration, alleging among other things that the executive order violated the due process clause of the Constitution, as well as the establishment clause barring preference of certain religions over others, based on Trump's statements during the campaign.

On February 3, Judge James Robart of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a nationwide block on the travel ban on behalf of Washington and Minnesota (which joined the case on February 1). The Trump administration appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to reverse Robart's order and allow immigration officials to enforce the ban. The Ninth Circuit heard arguments in the case February 7. Attorneys for the government were unable to convince the three justices that the travel ban was not based on religious discrimination, and in a unanimous decision on February 9, the appeals court upheld the lower court's order blocking enforcement of the ban.

Though the Trump administration initially claimed it would take the case to the Supreme Court, on March 6, Trump replaced the ban with a new version, Executive Order 13780, which dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries and removed the indefinite exclusion of Syrians from consideration for refugee status. The state of Hawaii challenged the executive order on March 8, claiming that the executive order called for state agencies to violate constitutional guarantees, and that the order represented a fundamental threat to Hawaii's economy. US District Court judge Derrick Watson issued a temporary restraining order preventing the new executive order from taking effect on March 15, arguing among other points that the evidence for religious discrimination remained in the new order.

Key Figures

Bob Ferguson: Attorney general for the state of Washington.

James Robart: US federal judge who issued the first restraining order against Executive Order 13769.

Donald Trump: President of the United States.

Bibliography

Allen, N., Sherlock, R., Lawler, D., and Palazzo, C. (2017, February 10). Donald Trump travel ban: US judges refuse to reinstate his executive order—president lashes out: "I'll see you in court." The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/10/donald-trump-us-travel-ban-live/

Domonoske, C. (2017, March 16). The new rulings against Trump's travel ban: What was blocked and why. NPR. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/16/520391884/the-new-rulings-against-trumps-travel-ban-what-was-blocked-and-why

Jarrett, L., Marsh, R., and Koran, L. (2017, February 4). Homeland Security suspends travel ban. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/federal-judge-temporarily-halts-trump-travel-ban-nationwide-ag-says/

McGraw, M., and Kelsey, A. (2017, March 16). A timeline of Trump's immigration executive order and legal challenges. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-president-trumps-immigration-executive-order-legal-challenges/story?id=45332741

State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump. (2017, March 30). United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. Retrieved from https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk‗id=0000000860

Thrush, G. (2017, March 6). Trump's new travel ban blocks migrants from six nations, sparing Iraq. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/travel-ban-muslim-trump.html

Wang, A. (2017, January 29). Trump asked for a "Muslim ban," Giuliani says—and ordered a commission to do it "legally." The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/