scholarly journals President Trump Issues Executive Orders Suspending Refugee Program and Barring Entry by Individuals from Specified Countries

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 764-776
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Establishment Clause ◽  
New Order ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
Executive Orders ◽  
Religious Persecution ◽  
Muslim Countries ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Trump Administration

On January 27, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that: (1) prohibited nationals from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States for ninety days; and (2) prohibited individuals from entering into the United States as refugees for 120 days. Courts stayed the order on constitutional and statutory grounds. In response to these stays, President Trump replaced the initial order with a new order that eliminated preferential treatment for refugees fleeing from religious persecution and narrowed the scope of persons prohibited from entering into the United States. Courts again issued stays, holding that the new order violated the Establishment Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Trump administration appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in October. Along with its grant of certiorari, the Court kept the lower court stays in place except as to people with no connection to the United States either personally or through family.

scholarly journals U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Presidential Proclamation Restricting Entry of Individuals from Covered Countries

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 741-745 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Establishment Clause ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
Security Interest ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Travel Restrictions ◽  
Preliminary Injunction

On June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump's most recent iteration of restrictions on entry to the United States by nationals from certain foreign countries. Following several rewrites of this travel ban, ensuing legal challenges, and lower court injunctions, the Court, in a five-to-four decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, reversed the latest ruling of a lower court that had granted a partial preliminary injunction against the ban. Although acknowledging that there was considerable evidence tying the travel ban to bias against Muslims, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs were nonetheless unlikely to succeed either in their statutory claim that Trump lacked the authority to impose this ban or in their constitutional claim that the ban violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court accordingly reversed the lower court's injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The ruling, based on the Trump administration's asserted national security interest, leaves in place travel restrictions imposed on nationals of seven countries—Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—only two of which are not Muslim-majority countries.

Kebijakan Imigrasi Presiden Trump Terhadap Masyarakat Imigran Di Amerika Serikat Tahun 2017-2018

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Made Fitri Padmi ◽  
Zaenab Yulianti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigrant Communities ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Executive Orders ◽  
Muslim Countries ◽  
The Impact

AbstrakTulisan membahas tentang kebijakan imigrasi Donald Trump pada 2 tahun pertama dan dampaknya terhadap masyarakat imigran di Amerika Serikat. Kebijakan imigrasi yang penulis bahas dalam tulisan ini adalah Executive Order di tandatangi Donald Trump pada tahun 2017 terkait larangan akses masuk masyarakat dari tujuh negara muslim yang menurut Amerika Serikat merupakan negara pendukung terorisme. Karya tulis ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dan studi kepustakaan serta penyajian data secara eksplanatif. Dalam tulisan ini menunjukan bahwa kebijakan imigrasi Donald Trump mengakibatkan dampak terhadap imigran dari tujuh negara muslim yang ada dan calon imigran yang akan menuju ke Amerika Serikat. Selain dampak terhadap sasaran utama, kebijakan ini juga berdampak pada imigran-imigran lain diluar tujuh negara tersebut serta keamanan, tindakan diskriminasi dan fenomena Xenophobia dan Islamophobia di Amerika Serikat.Kata Kunci: Donald Trump, Executive Order, Imigran, Diskriminasi AbstractThis paper discussed the impact of Donald Trump's immigration policy in the first 2 years against immigrant communities in the United States. The immigration policy that the writer discussed in this paper was the Executive Orders which was signed by Donald Trump in 2017 related to the prohibition of entry into the United States from seven Muslim countries, which according to the United States is a country supporting terrorism. This paper used a qualitative approach and literature study as well as an explanatory data presentation. The results of this paper showed that Donald Trump's immigration policy has had an impact on immigrants from seven existing Muslim countries and prospective immigrants heading to the United States. In addition to the impact on the main targets, this policy also affected other immigrants outside the seven countries as well as security, acts of discrimination and the phenomenon of Xenophobia and Islamophobia in the United States.  Keywords: Donald Trump, Executive Order, Immigrants, Discrimination

scholarly journals What Can We Expect of Law and Religion in 2020?

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-86
Author(s):  
Leslie C. Griffin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Church And State ◽  
The United States ◽  
Establishment Clause ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
Free Exercise Clause ◽  
Religious Person ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government

The United States is in a religion-friendly mood—or at least its three branches of government are. The Supreme Court is turning away from its Free Exercise Clause analysis that currently holds that every religious person must obey the law. At the same time, the Court is rejecting its old Establishment Clause analysis that the government cannot practice or support religion. The old model of separation of church and state is gone, replaced by an ever-growing unity between church and state. This Article examines how much union of church and state this Court might establish.

scholarly journals Erecting a Virtual Schoolhouse Gate

2019 ◽  
pp. 73-89
Author(s):  
Maryam Ahranjani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Interest In Technology

The very first amendment to the United States Constitution protects the freedom of speech. While the Supreme Court held in 1969 that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate,” since then the Court has limited students' freedom of speech, stopping short of considering the boundaries of off-campus, online speech. Lower court holdings vary, meaning that a student engaging in certain online speech may not be punished at all in one state but would face harsh criminal punishments in another. The lack of a uniform standard leads to dangerously inconsistent punishments and poses the ultimate threat to constitutional knowledge and citizenship exercise: chilling of speech. Recent interest in technology-related cases and the presence of a new justice may reverse the Court's prior unwillingness to address this issue. In the meantime, this chapter argues that school districts should erect a virtual schoolhouse gate by implementing a uniform standard.

Executive Orders—A Bibliographical Note

1935 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 246-249
Author(s):  
Everett S. Brown
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Bibliographical Note ◽  
Executive Orders ◽  
Fair Competition ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Sharp Criticism

Sharp criticism by Chief Justice Hughes and Associate Justice Brandeis of the Supreme Court, in the Eastern Texas oil case, of the haphazard manner in which executive and administrative orders having the force of law are distributed attracted public attention to a much-needed reform which has been advocated at intervals by political scientists. Lack of definite information concerning the issuance of these orders, combined with their rapidly increasing number and importance under the codes of fair competition, are factors in the growing demand that they be published in some definite and available form.If one consults the Catalogue of Public Documents, under the subject “executive orders,” one finds the following: “See notes, entries, and lists of references under President of the United States. Executive orders—also subjects of orders.”

US birthright debate will have unintended effects

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Unintended Effects ◽  
Executive Orders ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Birthright Citizenship ◽  
Court Judge ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Trump Administration

Significance Trump's claim concerned a US District Court judge in California appointed during President Barack Obama's term who on November 9 ruled against an order to restrict asylum seekers to making their claims only at official US border posts. The next likely immigration-related clash between the courts and Trump is over his idea to use executive powers to curtail 'birthright' citizenship, the automatic granting of citizenship to anyone born in the United States. Impacts Immigration will likely cause further friction in US relations with Latin American countries where many immigrants originate. Trying to curtail or end birthright citizenship will undermine Republican support in immigrant communities. The Trump-Roberts spat will not turn the 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court against Trump. Greater use of executive orders is likely given split control of Congress and Trump's belief that some courts are partisan. The Trump administration will refine its use of executive orders so that fewer are likely to face courts' rejection.

scholarly journals Trump Administration Further Restricts Asylum Seekers at the Southern Border Through the Migrant Protection Protocols, Asylum Cooperative Agreements, and COVID-19 Procedures

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (3) ◽  
pp. 504-511
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
Cooperative Agreements ◽  
Mexico Border ◽  
Southern Border ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

During the spring of 2020, the Trump administration continued efforts to reduce the ability of individuals to seek asylum in the United States, particularly at its southern border. The administration received temporary authorization from the U.S. Supreme Court to put into effect the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)—an arrangement that requires non-Mexican asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings—while the administration petitions the Court to reverse a lower court decision enjoining the MPP's implementation. The administration has also sought to implement its asylum cooperative agreement with Guatemala, whereby the United States sends certain non-Guatemalan migrants to Guatemala to apply for asylum there. The legality of this agreement is presently being challenged, and, in March of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic caused Guatemala to stop accepting flights of migrants sent by the U.S. government. Citing COVID-19, the Trump administration itself issued various suspensions of entry into the United States of noncitizens during the spring of 2020, including with respect to asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.

In the Supreme Court of the United States: Clara Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust..

1988 ◽  
Vol 43 (12) ◽  
pp. 1019-1028 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald N. Bersoff ◽  
Laurel P. Malson ◽  
Donald B. Verrilli
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fort Worth ◽  
The Supreme Court
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document