This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/us/visa-ban-legal-challenge.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Dueling Court Rulings on Immigration Ban Add to Visa Chaos Court Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Travel Ban, and Airlines Are Told to Allow Passengers
(about 2 hours later)
Rival court decisions on opposite sides of the country created deep confusion over President Trump’s immigration order on Friday, with a federal judge in Boston issuing a decision defending the measure and another in Seattle blocking it nationwide. A federal judge in Seattle on Friday temporarily blocked President Trump’s week-old immigration order from being enforced nationwide, reopening America’s door to visa holders from seven predominantly Muslim countries and dealing the administration a humbling defeat.
The Seattle ruling was the most far-reaching to date, temporarily reopening the door to visa holders from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The federal government was “arguing that we have to protect the U.S. from individuals from these countries, and there’s no support for that,” said the judge, James Robart of Federal District Court, an appointee of President George W. Bush, in a decision delivered from the bench. The White House vowed late Friday to fight what it called an “outrageous” ruling, saying it would seek an emergency halt to the judge’s order as soon as possible and restore the president’s “lawful and appropriate order.”
The Justice Department did not say whether it would appeal the ruling, and it was unclear Friday night how quickly, or even if, the revoked travel rights would be restored. “The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people,” the White House said. A revised statement released later omitted the word “outrageous.”
“The department looks forward to reviewing the court’s written order and will determine next steps,” said Nicole A. Navas, a Justice Department spokeswoman. Courts around the country have halted aspects of Mr. Trump’s temporary ban on travel from the seven countries, but the Seattle ruling was the most far-reaching to date.
That ruling came shortly after a federal judge in Boston gave the government a victory in declining to extend a temporary halt to the order in that jurisdiction. Airlines that had been stopping travelers from boarding planes to the United States were told by the government in a conference call Friday night to begin allowing them to fly, according to a person familiar with the call but who declined to be identified because it was a private discussion. The Trump administration, however, could again block the travelers if it were to win an emergency stay.
The judge, Nathaniel M. Gorton, who was appointed to the bench by the first President George Bush, said that while the nation’s immigration history was a source of great pride and that the plaintiffs in that case — Iranian nationals who are academics — had compelling stories, “the public interest in safety and security in this ever-more dangerous world is strong as well.” The federal government was “arguing that we have to protect the U.S. from individuals from these countries, and there’s no support for that,” said the judge, James Robart of Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington, an appointee of President George W. Bush, in a decision delivered from the bench.
The decisions added to widespread disagreement over how the policy was being carried out, flummoxing immigration lawyers, government officials and travelers a full week after its signing. The judge’s ruling was temporary, putting Mr. Trump’s policy on hold at least until the government and opponents of the order had a chance to make full arguments, or until the administration won a stay.
To gasps in a Virginia courtroom, a lawyer for the government told a federal judge on Friday that more than 100,000 visas had been revoked as part of President Trump’s order. A State Department official later contradicted that number, saying that the figure was “fewer than 60,000.” “What we’re seeing here is the courts standing up to the unconstitutional ban that President Trump imposed,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the A.C.L.U. “There’s obviously more litigation to come, but this is truly good news for the many people both in this country and abroad who have been unfairly targeted on the basis of their religion by this ban.”
With the varying court rulings, the involvement of three executive agencies in addition to the White House, and airlines inconsistent in how they were applying the order, no two people could be guaranteed comparable treatment. It is not unusual for district courts to issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive actions, and the federal government must obey such injunctions even when other district courts have declined to issue injunctions in similar cases.
“It’s quite clear it was not all that thought out,” said Judge Leonie Brinkema of Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., an appointee of President Bill Clinton. “As a result there has been chaos.” Judge Robart temporarily barred the administration from enforcing two parts of Mr. Trump’s order: its 90-day suspension of entry into the United States of people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — and its limits on accepting refugees, including “any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities.”
The order, signed Jan. 27, banned immigration for 90 days from seven majority-Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It suspended the admission of Syrian refugees indefinitely and all other refugees for 120 days. The president said the pause was needed so the government could evaluate its vetting procedures to protect against terrorism. The order had suspended admissions of any refugees for 120 days, and of Syrian refugees indefinitely. The goal, the president said, was to evaluate the process for vetting refugees and other immigrants in order to safeguard the country against terrorism.
“In order to protect Americans, and to advance the national interest, the United States must ensure that we have adequate information about individuals seeking to enter this country to ensure that they do not bear malicious intent toward the United States and its people,” the Department of Homeland Security said Friday. The order said that when immigration from the seven countries resumed, persecuted religious minorities would be given preference, and in an interview the day of the signing, Mr. Trump said the United States would give Christians from those countries priority because they had suffered “more so than others.”
The order allowed for exceptions in the “national interest,” but lawyers for some travelers described getting one as a Kafkaesque exercise, with the State Department’s website warning that no emergency applications would be heard, and Customs and Border Protection agents at United States airports all but unreachable because their clients were not being allowed to board planes. Judge Robart made clear that his order applied nationwide, citing a similar nationwide injunction from a federal district court in Texas that had blocked President Barack Obama’s plan to shield some undocumented immigrants from deportation and allow them to legally work in the United States.
Protests over the policy continued on Friday, including a large group that gathered in a parking lot of Kennedy International Airport in New York for a midday Muslim prayer session. Since Mr. Trump signed his order on Jan. 27, there has been widespread confusion over the policy and disagreement over how it was being carried out, flummoxing immigration lawyers, government officials and travelers. Shortly before the Seattle ruling, a different federal judge, Nathaniel M. Gorton in Boston, ruled in favor of the government by declining to extend a temporary halt to the order in that jurisdiction.
One big question surrounded the number of people who were affected by the travel ban. Besides barring refugees and other visa holders from the seven countries from entering the United States, the administration also revoked, at least temporarily, all visas from the seven countries, including those for people currently living in the United States. The revocations, which were not publicly announced but were revealed during court proceedings, meant that anyone who lost their visa would be unable to re-enter the United States if they left. Judge Gorton, who was appointed to the bench by the first President George Bush, said that while the nation’s immigration history was a source of great pride and that the plaintiffs in that case — Iranian nationals who are academics — had compelling stories, “the public interest in safety and security in this ever more dangerous world is strong as well.”
The State Department said late Friday that the Justice Department’s 100,000 number also included diplomatic visas, which were untouched by the ban, as well as expired visas from the seven countries. The true number of revoked visas was less than 60,000, the State Department said. “To put that number in context, we issued over 11 million immigrant and nonimmigrant visas in fiscal year 2015,” said William Cocks, a spokesman for the department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs. But that ruling was soon rendered moot, at least for now, by the Seattle ruling.
The situation in Boston epitomized the confusion around the country. Last Sunday, a federal judge there imposed a seven-day block to the order, and told the government to tell airlines that anyone with a visa from the seven countries should be permitted to enter the country through Boston’s Logan Airport.
That led some stranded travelers to try to rebook flights to Logan, but in numerous cases, they were still told they could not board the planes. Then the German airline Lufthansa said it would began taking passengers to Logan, and a handful successfully landed there Friday afternoon.
“If I didn’t do it today, I probably never could do it,” said Atiyeh Goudarzi, 32, who is from Iran.
Judge Gorton’s decision Friday denied a request by the A.C.L.U. of Massachusetts and the state attorney general, to make permanent the seven-day restraining order, meaning it would expire Sunday morning.
Because the court fights so far have centered on whether judges should impose and keep in place temporary restraining orders, the legal arguments in the last few days have centered on the government’s contention that there is “no potential irreparable harm” to justify keeping the extraordinary orders in place pending fuller briefing and arguments.
It has also played down First Amendment claims by groups who have challenged the order because they want to bring foreigners into the country for speeches or meetings, saying the foreigners could “appear via videoconference or telephone.”
The administration has been criticized for issuing its order without any warning to refugees and visa holders who were on their way to the United States. Some arrived at airports for flights and were turned away.The administration has been criticized for issuing its order without any warning to refugees and visa holders who were on their way to the United States. Some arrived at airports for flights and were turned away.
“This order touched something in the U.S. that I’ve never seen before,” Judge Brinkema said, according to The Associated Press. “People are quite upset.” The president’s order allowed for exceptions in the “national interest,” but lawyers for some travelers had described getting one as a Kafkaesque exercise, with the State Department’s website warning that no emergency applications would be heard, and Customs and Border Protection agents at United States airports all but unreachable because their clients were not being allowed to board planes.
Charles Roth, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center, a firm that provides legal services and advocacy for immigrants, said that earlier in the week, two of his clients, a couple from Iran, were denied entry onto a flight bound for Dulles Airport outside Washington after they had received long-awaited permission to enter the country. “It’s quite clear it was not all that thought out,” Judge Leonie Brinkema of Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., said in yet another court hearing held Friday. “As a result there has been chaos.”
The husband and wife had sold their home and quit their jobs in Iran in preparation to move to the United States, Mr. Roth said. He advised them to book a second flight, which is scheduled to fly into Logan Airport in Boston on Saturday evening, just before the temporary restraining order expires. “I don’t know exactly what’s going to happen when they arrive,” Mr. Roth said. “I mean, if they arrive.” Protests over the policy continued on Friday, including a large group that gathered in a parking lot of Kennedy International Airport in New York for the Friday Prayer.
One big question surrounded the number of people who were affected by the travel ban.
Besides barring refugees and other visa holders from the seven countries from entering the United States, the administration also revoked, at least temporarily, all visas from the seven countries, including those for people currently living in the United States. The revocations, which were not publicly announced but were revealed during court proceedings, meant that anyone who lost their visa would be unable to re-enter the United States if they left.
In the Virginia courtroom, spectators gasped when a lawyer for the government told Judge Brinkema, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, that more than 100,000 visas had been revoked as part of President Trump’s order. A State Department official later contradicted that number, saying that it mistakenly included diplomatic visas that were untouched by the ban as well as expired visas.
The true figure was “fewer than 60,000,” said William Cocks, a spokesman for the department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs.
“To put that number in context, we issued over 11 million immigrant and nonimmigrant visas in fiscal year 2015,” he said in a statement.
Because the court fights so far have centered on whether judges should impose and keep in place temporary restraining orders, the legal arguments in the last few days have centered on the government’s contention that there is “no potential irreparable harm” to justify keeping the extraordinary orders in place pending fuller briefing and arguments.
But Bob Ferguson, the Washington attorney general, who opposed the Trump administration in the Seattle case, said the decision Friday “shuts down the executive order nationwide and immediately.”
“I hope the federal government will understand what they did was unconstitutional and unlawful,” he said.