Refugees from around the globe, and visa-holders from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia can once again travel to America–for the time being, at least. The window of relief came courtesy of James Robart, a federal district court judge in Seattle, Washington. On Friday, Robart granted a temporary restraining order on President Donald Trump’s recent executive order travel ban, which barred travelers from the seven aforementioned countries–refugees and visitors alike–for various amounts of time.

Trump responded to the injunction by taking the case to federal appeals court–and by tweeting:

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

While tweeting obviously does not have constitutional authority to overturn the opinion of a federal judge, an appeals court does. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco did not re-instate the travel ban; instead it ordered the Trump Administration to file a brief defending the executive order by Monday at 3 p.m. In its emergency motion filed with the appeals court, which was denied, the administration wrote:

The injunction contravenes the constitutional separation of powers; harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the nation’s elected representative responsible for immigration matters and foreign affairs; and second-guesses the President’s national security judgment about the quantum of risk posed by the admission of certain classes of aliens and the best means of minimizing that risk.

However the appeals court decides to rule on the motion, the losing side, either the Trump Administration or the states of Washington and Minnesota, which filed the initial lawsuit, will likely bring their case to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, Trump continues to lash out at the “so-called judge” Robart, Trump’s surrogates were dispatched to defend him, and Republican and Democratic politicians responded to the president’s apparent disrespect for the judicial branch.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Vice President Mike Pence said Trump has “every right to criticize the other two branches of government.” He added that Trump and millions of Americans “want to see judges that will uphold the law and recognize the authority the president of the United States has under the Constitution to manage who comes into this country.”

In its emergency motion, the administration cited the Immigration Act of 1952 (amended in 1965) as “the framework for deciding which aliens may enter and remain in the United States.” This law, the administration said, gives the executive branch the authority to determine who is welcome to come to America, for refuge or for a visit.

The 1965 law was passed to undo America’s past quotas on immigrants from certain countries, notably Arabs, Africans, and European Jews fleeing the Holocaust. The law broadly established the current procedure for resettling refugees and welcoming immigrants, and the Trump Administration is likely to point to it as proof of the president’s authority to make immigration-related decisions.

As Trump continues to decry the federal courts (“just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril,” he tweeted on Sunday), Democrats and some Republicans are defending judicial authority. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said its “best not to single out judges,” and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), on ABC’s “This Week,” said: “We have people from three different branches of government who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said Trump “is not a dictator,” and that the Founding Fathers “wanted a strong Congress for the very reason that most of these kinds of things should be done within the scope of lawmaking. This is done within the scope of executive power.” In the coming days, weeks and, most likely, months, federal courts, including the Supreme Court, will test the checks-and-balances system the founders established centuries ago.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on with Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that blocks people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days. All refugees will be barred for 120 days, Syrian refugees are blocked indefinitely. Thousands of people have hit the nation’s airports and city centers to protest Trump’s order. Business and religious leaders have spoken out against the travel ban. Congressmen–Democrats and many Republicans–have decried the move. But still, there are many people in America who are frightened, and there are plenty who support the executive order.

According to a recent Reuters poll, nearly half (49 percent) of the country supports the order. It’s largely split by party lines. A majority of Republicans (over 75 percent) support the ban, while roughly 20 percent of Democrats do. The poll, which gathered responses from 453 Democrats and 478 Republicans, also found that 31 percent of respondents say the ban makes them feel “more safe.” About one quarter said it makes them feel “less safe.”

Cheryl Hoffman, a 46-year-old living in Sumerduck, Virginia, told Reuters that she understands America is a nation built on immigration. “But I’m worried that refugees are coming in and being supported by my tax dollars,” she said. For some, however, Trump’s order is more than a penny-saving decision. It’s about keeping Muslims out of the U.S.

“Every story about a Muslim immigrant is that they are as American as apple pie,” Sal Oliva, a hotel worker and Uber courier from Staten Island, New York told The New York Times. “But I’m sorry, Islam is no friend of L.G.B.T. people.” Oliva, who is gay, added: “When Islam meets gay people in Somalia or wherever, they get thrown off the roof. And you expect them to be different when they move here? You can’t expect people to absorb our values.”

The Reuters poll also found that most Americans (56 percent) do not support preferential treatment for persecuted Christian minorities who live in the seven countries affected by the order. Trump contends the order has nothing to do with religion, and is not a “Muslim ban,” as many critics have been calling it. “This is not about religion,” Trump said in a statement on Friday. “This is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

Michael Bower, a 35 year-old who lives in Seattle, thinks the outrage over the order is a bit much. “Let’s just take a breather,” Bower told The New York Times. “Take a little time out. Let’s get the smart people in here and formulate a plan.” According to polling, nearly half of the country agrees.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Many Americans Support Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

Iran’s defense minister confirmed on Wednesday what the U.S. and Israel suspected earlier this week: Iran conducted a missile test over the weekend. Iran has launched missile tests since it struck a nuclear agreement with the U.S. and other world powers last summer, but this was the first to occur under President Donald Trump. At an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, delivered an urgent diatribe, calling the missile launch “absolutely unacceptable.”

“The United States is not naïve,” Haley said after the meeting. “We’re not going to stand by. You’re going to see us call them out as we said we would, and you are also going to see us act accordingly.” What, if any, concrete steps the U.S. can take to reign in Iran is unclear. But the council said it would refer the case to its sanctions committee; it did the same after Iran’s missile test last year, which resulted in no further action. 

Iran’s latest missile launch, which according to U.S. officials traveled over 600 miles before exploding, could signal a new tenuous chapter in the Iran-U.S. relationship. During Trump’s first week, he issued an executive order that incensed Iran and many of its Middle Eastern neighbors. The order suspends the U.S. refugee program for 120 days–refugees from Syria will be barred indefinitely–and keeps citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries (including Iran) from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days.

Last summer, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, along with five other world powers, struck a contentious deal with Iran. Under the deal, sanctions on Iran were lifted, and Iran scaled back its nuclear program. Iran could still use nuclear power for energy purposes, however. Trump has questioned the deal, raising speculations about whether he will enforce it more strictly or abandon it entirely. During his confirmation hearing, James Mattis, the newly confirmed defense secretary, said that while the deal is flawed, the U.S. should stick to it.

Iran contends its missiles are not equipped to carry nuclear warheads, so its test does not violate the agreement or a subsequent UN resolution that directed Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.” Iran’s foreign minister said the tests are “exclusively for legitimate defense.” National Security Advisor Michael Flynn responded on Wednesday: “As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Will the U.S. Respond to Iran’s Latest Missile Test? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump fired Sally Yates, the acting attorney general, late Monday night, after she said she would not defend an executive order the president signed last Friday. Dana Boente, a U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, will serve as the acting attorney general for the time being. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a confirmation vote on Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for attorney general, as early as Tuesday.

The controversy that culminated in the firing of Yates began last Friday, when Trump signed an executive order, barring citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from coming to the U.S. for at least 90 days. Syrians are blocked indefinitely, and refugees from all countries will not be admitted to the U.S. for at least 120 days. Widespread dissent followed Trump’s order: thousands of protesters hit major airports and city streets around the country; Democrats, and many Republicans spoke out; and many religious and business leaders decried the order.

Late Monday afternoon, Yates sent a letter to Justice Department lawyers:

I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

According to Justice Department officials, Yates had been struggling with how to respond to Trump’s divisive order, and had even considered resigning. Trump responded to Yates’ defiance in a Twitter post last night, a few hours before she was fired:

The Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons. They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 31, 2017

Monday evening, at about 9:15 p.m., Yates received a hand-written letter from the White House, stating: “the president has removed you from the office of Deputy Attorney General of the United States.” Soon after, a statement by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Yates “is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.”

Spicer defended Trump’s executive order, which was approved by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel “with respect to form and legality.” Spicer said: “Calling for tougher vetting for individuals traveling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.”

Attorneys general have resigned from their posts over the past few decades, but it is quite rare for one to be fired. In fact, the last time this happened was in 1973, during the so-called Saturday Night Massacre, when President Richard Nixon fired his attorney general and deputy attorney general. They were fired because they refused to dismiss the special prosecutor in the Watergate case.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Sally Yates and Why Did President Trump Fire Her? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s decree on Friday, barring refugees and immigrants from seven largely Muslim countries from entering the U.S., ignited protests across the country on Saturday and Sunday. Now, members of the State Department are joining the dissent: over 100 officials have signed a memorandum that warns that the executive order could in fact deepen the terrorist threat that Trump is seeking to contain.

A draft of the State Department memo said the order runs the risk of increasing “anti-American sentiment” and implies “that we consider all nationals of these countries to be an unacceptable security risk.” The executive order suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days; Syrian refugees and immigrants are blocked indefinitely. Visitors and immigrants from the other six countries–Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Sudan–cannot come to the U.S. for 90 days.

This was hardly the first time the State Department has utilized its “dissent channel,” which was created after the Vietnam War, but this number of signatories is unprecedented. In June 2016, 51 State Department officials signed a dissent memo that criticized President Barack Obama’s policy in Syria. The number of signatories to that memo was considered unusual at the time. The latest memo has attracted nearly double the number of dissenting officials.

State Department Spokesman Mark Toner said the department’s “dissent channel” is an “important process.” He added: “It allows State employees to express divergent policy views candidly and privately to senior leadership.” Traditionally, dissent memos are given to the secretary of state, who has the power to act on the memo. Trump’s choice, Rex Tillerson, is not expected to be confirmed until Wednesday.

The White House, which has vehemently defended its actions after a torrent of criticism from religious leaders, Democrats, private citizens, business leaders, and many Republican congressmen, did not seem to react well to the dissent memo. In a press conference on Monday afternoon, Press Secretary Sean Spicer said if somebody “has a problem” with Trump’s agenda, then that can “call into question whether or not they should continue in that post or not.” Spicer added: “They should get with the program or they should go.”

Trump’s divisive order led to protests across the country, as people rushed to show support for the Muslim community and for refugees around the globe who will be denied entry into the U.S. for at least four months. In his first statement since leaving office, Obama expressed support for the protests, and criticized his successor’s order.

“Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake,” the statement from Obama’s office said, adding that the former president “fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Over 100 State Department Officials Sign Memo Condemning Trump’s Refugee Ban appeared first on Law Street.