Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on Order from Chaos.
Latest in Refugees
Implementing the Refugee EO: The State Department Should Consider Refugee Agency Assurances as Bona Fide Relationships
While progress has been made in implementing the Supreme Court’s stay of lower court injunctions of President Trump’s revised refugee executive order (EO), the State Department’s current stance on refugee admissions requires further review. According to the State Department’s most recent guidance, an experienced refugee agency’s “formal assurance” that it will provide all requisite assistance in a refugee’s resettlement in the U.S.
The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit has affirmed in part a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's revised travel ban issued by a federal district court in Hawaii v. Trump. The circuit court vacated the portions of the injunction that prevent the government from conducting internal reviews and that run against the President personally, but otherwise upheld the district court's ruling. The opinion is available in full below.
A Civil War-era decision about military commission trials took center stage in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision last week upholding a district court injunction against President Trump’s second travel ban. The very first sentence of the Fourth Circuit’s majority opinion declares:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed in part a district court's nationwide preliminary injunction issued against the Trump administration's revised travel ban in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump. The decision is included in full below.
The Fourth Circuit Argument on the Refugee EO: Second-Guessing the President or Safeguarding Individual Rights?
Reading the tea-leaves of appellate argument can be tricky, but skepticism about the legality of President Trump’s revised Executive Order (EO) was a prominent strand in Monday’s Fourth Circuit en banc argument on whether to affirm a Maryland district court’s injunction halting the EO. Of the thirteen judges at the hearing in International Refugee Assistance Project v.
Yesterday afternoon, the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, heard two hours of argument in IRAP v. Trump. At issue was District Judge Theodore Chuang’s nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13,780, President Trump’s revised March 6 travel ban order.
What the Data Really Show About Terrorists Who 'Came Here,' Part III: What If You Included Domestic Terrorism Cases?
As we have sought to show in Parts I and II of this series, the claims that President Trump made in his joint-session address to Congress and in his revised executive order about the percentage of terrorism-related crimes committed by foreigners in the United States contain a number of distortions.
In Part I of this series, we laid out what Justice Department data really show about how many foreign-born vs. domestic-born individuals have been convicted of crimes related to international terrorism in the years since Sept. 11, 2001.
In late February, during his address to a joint session of Congress, President Trump claimed that “according to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offense since 9/11 came here from outside of our country.”