The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the government from enforcing or implementing Section 2 (90-day travel ban) and Section 6 (120-day ban on U.S. refugee program) of the March 6, 2017, Executive Order (EO 13780) nationwide. Also, early today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued an injunction barring enforcement nationwide of Section 2(c) of the order. DOS announced that it will suspend implementation of the provisions of the Executive Order as required by the relevant court orders, and that U.S. embassies and consulates will continue to process visas for nationals of Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. In a press release, AILA welcomed the issuance of the two TROs, with AILA President William Stock noting, “Once again, our judiciary system has spoken and has ruled that the imposition of a blanket travel ban on nationals of six Muslim-majority countries raises serious constitutional questions.”
The Wall Street Journal reports that immigrant advocacy groups hailed a federal judge in Hawaii’s ruling on Wednesday that blocked President Trump’s revised travel ban from taking effect. However, they noted that the continuing legal battle over the ban casts an air of uncertainty over the immigration system and has already disrupted refugee resettlement and long-planned trips to the United States.
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said during a press conference on Thursday that his office is filing a motion asking a federal judge in Seattle to rule that an existing injunction against Trump’s earlier travel ban order applies to parallel portions of the president’s new directive. The states of Washington and Minnesota obtained the broadest injunction against Trump’s original order last month. Oregon was formally admitted to the case on Thursday, and the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts announced plans yesterday for their states to join the effort.
No more excluding any classes from prosecutorial discretion. Thus, it seems wide open to try to get as many foreign nationals as possible.
Be prepared to fight in Court.
The memo goes on to State that local and State enforcement officers need to enforce U.S. Immigration Laws
There will certainly be a wide variety of lawsuits on this memo because it is vague, ambiguous and far too broad and puts persons who are not removable under the law into its net.
No longer are certain foreign nationals exempted from enforcement.
The memo seems to now prioritize removability actions against those persons with crimes and fraud
The new priorities (which may be able to be fought in Court) are 1. those convicted of ANY criminal offense, 2. charged but not convicted, 3. committed acts which constitute a criminal offense, but no arrest or conviction, 4. committed fraud against the government, 5) abused any program to receive public benefits, 6) subject to final order of removal or 7) are deemed by an immigration officer to be a risk to public safety
Essentially – it leaves WIDE OPEN interpretation and attempts to remove foreign nationals who do not have removable offenses under the law.
The Department of Justice indicated in a February 16, 2017 court filing that President Trump intends to rescind the January 27, 2017 Executive Order and issue a new order in its place. DOJ urged the court to “hold its consideration of the case until the President issues the new Order,” and the Ninth Circuit subsequently issued an order staying en banc proceedings, pending further order of the court. In a February 16, 2017 news conference, President Trump also stated that he plans to issue a new Executive Order on immigration next week to “protect our country.”