ICYMI, catch up on what’s trending with Law Street’s best of the week below!

Oceana Sues Government for Withdrawing Proposed Rule to Protect Marine Life

Oceana is challenging the Trump Administration’s withdrawal of a proposed Obama-era rule that would have limited the number of protected marine animals that could be “incidentally captured” by drift gillnets. Oceana, a non-profit ocean conservation and advocacy organization, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on July 12 against the U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Maya Women Fight to Protect Indigenous Textiles from Appropriation

Throughout the western world, indigenous cultures have been fetishized by the ancestors of their past colonizers for their costumes and fashion. As a result, some groups have decided to take legal action to protect their life’s work from corporate mass-production–or at least find a way to earn profits stolen from them. The most recent development has come from Guatemala, where Maya women have made significant strides in their attempt to receive trademark protection for their textile designs–known as huipiles–so that they are not undercut by government-supported industrial fabric production meant to increase the country’s tourism appeal.

Confused About the Latest in the Travel Ban Case?: Here’s What you Need to Know

President Trump’s travel ban–which according to his aides and representatives is “not” a travel ban, but based on the president’s tweets, is in fact a travel ban–has just been handed another discouraging ruling from the courts. Late Thursday, a U.S. District in Hawaii, ruled that the president’s executive order restricting immigration from six Muslim-majority countries can’t be used to exclude “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.” The ruling rejected the government’s interpretation of recent guidance issued by the Supreme Court.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

This article has been updated. Click here to jump to the update.

President Trump’s travel ban–which according to his aides and representatives is “not” a travel ban, but based on the president’s tweets, is in fact a travel ban–has just been handed another discouraging ruling from the courts.

Late Thursday, a U.S. District in Hawaii, ruled that the president’s executive order restricting immigration from six Muslim-majority countries can’t be used to exclude “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.” The ruling rejected the government’s interpretation of recent guidance issued by the Supreme Court.

That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

The ruling, from Judge Derrick Watson, stems from Trump’s revised executive order that was issued on March 6. Later that month, Judge Watson issued a nationwide halt on the revised travel ban, ruling that it discriminated on the basis of religion. Judges in other parts of the country issued similar rulings that were upheld by multiple circuit courts. The issue then made its way to the Supreme Court after an appeal from Justice Department. In June, the Supreme Court said that it would hear the case in the fall and issued a partial ruling in the meantime.

The Supreme Court’s order stated that until it makes its final decision, certain aspects of the executive order could proceed. The court said that if someone seeking a visa or a refugee from one of the six countries could establish a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity of the United States then they should be allowed to enter the country.

While the Supreme Court offered guidance as to what a “bona fide relationship” is, much of the interpretation was left to the executive branch. The State Department interpreted the ruling through a diplomatic cable saying the only acceptable relationships include: spouse, parent, parent-in-law, child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, fiancé, and sibling.

In his ruling, Judge Watson stated that the administration’s definition “represents the antithesis of common sense” by including son-in-law and daughter-in-law but not grandparent as qualifying relationships.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions immediately sought clarification from the Supreme Court, saying that the district court:

Undermined national security, delayed necessary action, created confusion, and violated a proper respect for separation of powers… The Supreme Court has had to correct this lower court once, and we will now reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court to again vindicate the rule of law and the Executive Branch’s duty to protect the nation.

At the Supreme Court’s request, the state of Hawaii responded to the Justice Department’s arguments on Tuesday night, forcefully supporting Watson’s initial ruling and arguing that any appeal should go to the lower courts before the Supreme Court. The Justice Department fought back hours later with another brief making a case for the government’s narrower definition of a bona fide relationship. The government also justified its decision to go directly to the Supreme Court, saying that it is “is the only court that can provide definitive clarification.”

Although the Supreme Court is currently on its summer recess, it’s possible that the justices will decide to weigh in on the dispute in the near future.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Confused About the Latest in the Travel Ban Case?: Here’s What you Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Revised Travel Ban Takes Effect Tonight

This evening, the new version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban will go partially into effect. On Monday, the Supreme Court said “okay” to parts of the revised travel ban, but will hear the case in the fall. SCOTUS aims to probe how much control a president can actually have over border and immigration issues.

The court said this implementation of the ban would not affect those who can prove a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” Last night, the State Department issued guidelines for how to decide such cases. It says that individuals such as step-siblings, half-siblings, parents, in-laws, and sons- and daughters-in-law are considered close family. However, grandparents, nieces, nephews, or brothers- and sisters-in-law are not.

Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen are the countries that will be affected. Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU immigrants’ rights project, said the ruling worries him, as it could create arbitrary definitions of what close family relations are.

Under revised #TravelBan taking effect tonight at 8p ET “close family” excludes grandparents, aunts & uncles, & fiancées, among others pic.twitter.com/TQY3pVFcdd

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) June 29, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 29, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear President Donald Trump’s travel ban case. The hearing will be in October, and until then, the court said parts of the ban will be allowed to go into effect. Trump issued a revised executive order in March, blocking travel from six countries. Two federal courts have since ruled that the ban is unconstitutional and a breach of executive power. The Supreme Court agreed to examine both courts’ decisions.

For the time being, the ban will be reinstated “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the justices said. A bona fide relationship includes “a close familial relationship” for individuals. For entities, “the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the order].”

“The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity,” the court added.

Trump’s second attempt at stemming travel from a handful of Muslim-majority countries reined in a few of the tenets of his first order, which was originally issued in January. For one, the revised order dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries–Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.

The order stipulates that residents of the six countries are barred from traveling to the U.S. for 90 days, until stricter vetting procedures are in place. The refugee program will be halted for 120 days, and the number of admitted refugees will drop to 50,000 from about 110,000.

This is Trump’s first travel ban-related victory since he issued the updated order in March. Both orders faced a torrent of opposition–thousands of people hit the streets and packed airports across the country in protest. Trump’s directive fared no better in the courts.

Last month, a federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, issued an injunction on parts of the travel ban, arguing that it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” and violated the First Amendment.

A few weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the ban violated the president’s authority as granted by Congress. The court said Trump “did not meet the essential precondition in exercising his delegated authority,” which requires “a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”

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 Supreme Court Reinstates Parts of Trump’s Travel Ban, Will Hear Case in Fall appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Travel Ban Loses…Again

A second federal appeals court has shut down President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco rejected the ban that would limit travel from some Muslim countries yesterday, saying that the president exceeded his authority by making decisions about national security regarding immigration without sufficient justification.

Last month, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond reached the same decision but with different reasoning. That court said the ban is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. Team Trump has asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, and seems determined to keep fighting to ban some citizens from visiting the U.S.

Well, as predicted, the 9th Circuit did it again – Ruled against the TRAVEL BAN at such a dangerous time in the history of our country. S.C.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Kellyanne Conway’s husband, George Conway, sent out a critical tweet of President Donald Trump after the president reiterated his commitment to his “original travel ban.”

These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won’t help OSG get 5 votes in SCOTUS, which is what actually matters. Sad. https://t.co/zVhcyfm8Hr

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

Trump’s original tweet compelled Conway to tweet for the first time since retweeting a video about suspending New York Giants star wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. on December 20, 2015.

Conway believes that while Trump’s tweets on the ban may appeal to his voter base, it isn’t the right decision in terms of garnering the right number of votes to win a case in the Supreme Court.

Conway’s outburst comes within the same week that he chose not to pursue the position of leading the Civil Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, according to Politico.

“I have reluctantly concluded, however, that, for me and my family, this is not the right time for me to leave the private sector and take on a new role in the federal government,” he said in a statement.

While many people interpreted Conway’s tweet as a swipe at Trump, he attempted to clarify his comment in a string of four tweets. Conway explained that he still supports the Trump Administration, but that most lawyers would agree with him that Trump’s tweets on legal matters “undermine the Admin agenda and POTUS.”

1) Just to be clear, and in response to inquiries, I still VERY, VERY STRONGLY support POTUS, his Admin, policies, the executive order …

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

Earlier in the day, Kellyanne, a counselor to the president, had made an appearance on NBC’s “Today” criticizing “this obsession with covering everything he says on Twitter and very little what he does as president,” according to US News and World Report.

Apparently her husband disagrees and finds Trump’s tweets important. The president’s tweets created a reaction even without George Conway’s critique.

While Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, had previously claimed that Trump’s executive order was “…not a Muslim ban. It’s not a travel ban,” according to The Hill, the president has reverted to using the word “ban.”

People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017

Trump proceeded to call it a travel ban in four other tweets since June 3.

With his executive order set to be heard in the Supreme Court, many lawyers agree with Conway and feel that the president has greatly damaged his court case. Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston told the New York Times:

These difficulties are amplified exponentially when the client is the president of the United States, and he continuously sabotages his lawyers, who are struggling to defend his policies in an already hostile arena. I do not envy the solicitor general’s office.

George Conway has been a partner at the corporate law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz since January 1994 and won a case at the Supreme Court with Morrison v. National Australia Bank, according to CNN.

Conway was also considered for solicitor general in January 2017 after Trump had won the election. Despite his marriage to Kellyanne, his potential position in the government would not have been nepotism because neither one would have held direct authority over the other, according to The New York Times.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kellyanne Conway’s Husband Critiques Trump’s Tweets appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration is taking its fight to implement a controversial executive order halting travel from six largely Muslim countries for 120 days to the highest judicial level: the Supreme Court. Lower courts have blocked parts of President Donald Trump’s revised order–he scrapped a first attempt earlier this year after courts stopped it–over the past few weeks.

Trump’s harsh campaign rhetoric regarding Muslims, critics argued, revealed that his true motivation for instituting the ban was to stop Muslims from coming to the country. Trump has said the order–which blocked travel from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia–is grounded in national security concerns.

In its brief, the administration argued:

The stakes are indisputably high: The court of appeals concluded that the president acted in bad faith with religious animus when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism. The court did not dispute that the president acted at the height of his powers in instituting [the order’s] temporary pause on entry by nationals from certain countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism.

The road to the Supreme Court has been seemingly inevitable. Trump crumpled up his first order, issued on January 27, after a federal appeals court in San Francisco blocked it in February.

The president issued a revised ban in March, which dropped the number of affected countries from seven to six (Iraq was removed), removed specific references to protecting Christian minorities, and allowed for a more case-by-case approach to determine which travelers are allowed into the country. Like the first order, it froze the refugee program for 120 days, and dropped the threshold of admitted refugees each year from 110,000 to 50,000.

If the High Court decides to take up the case, it will be an early test for Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest justice. In his Senate confirmation hearing in March, Gorsuch barely budged when asked about his views on the travel ban. Referring to a previous comment from a senator that Gorsuch would likely preserve the ban, Gorsuch said: “He has no idea how I would rule in that case. And senator, I am not going to say anything here that would gave anybody any idea how I would rule.” When Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Gorsuch what he thought of banning other religions or citizens of entire countries, like Jews from Israel, Gorsuch replied:

We have a Constitution. And it does guarantee freedom to exercise. It also guarantees equal protection of the laws and a whole lot else besides, and the Supreme Court has held that due process rights extend even to undocumented persons in this country. I will apply the law faithfully and fearlessly and without regard to persons.

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 Trump Administration Takes Travel Ban Battle to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Cities Go Green in Support of the Paris Climate Agreement

Yesterday, President Donald Trump announced that he will withdraw the United States from the Paris climate deal. In a speech announcing the news, he focused once again on putting America first. “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” he said. But Trump’s decision has come under heavy criticism–world leaders, climate experts, corporate executives, and members of his own party have criticized it. Trump also said he wants to renegotiate the deal to better suit America, but France, Germany, and Italy immediately issued a statement saying that renegotiation isn’t on the table.

Trump thinks the climate deal is an attack on America’s sovereignty: “We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won’t be,” he said. Business heavy-hitters like Elon Musk and the leaders of General Electric and Goldman Sachs said the decision will harm the U.S. by de-emphasizing jobs in the clean energy sector. Musk said he will no longer be a part of Trump’s business council. And last night, major buildings around the globe lit up in green in support of the climate deal and in protest of Trump’s decision.

PHOTO: Paris’ city hall shines green in support of the climate deal. pic.twitter.com/LpF2z1nsw1

— Eyewitness News (@ABC7NY) June 1, 2017

World: the Empire State stands with you. New York shines green for our planet, our health and our children’s future. #ParisAgreement pic.twitter.com/Ubw7WSPgu0

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 2, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Jared Kushner Under FBI Scrutiny

Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and one of his closest advisers, is under FBI scrutiny regarding the Russia probe. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Kushner has done anything wrong, rather that investigators believe he has information related to the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. According to people with knowledge of the investigation who spoke to the Chicago Tribune, Kushner “is being investigated because of the extent and nature of his interactions with the Russians.” The FBI has yet to comment.

Last week, sources told the Washington Post that one of Trump’s senior advisers was under scrutiny; many hypothesized that it was Kushner. There has also been speculation that the investigators are looking into possible financial crimes on Kushner’s part, including a possible failure to disclose certain loans and assets.

The FBI turns its attention to Jared Kushner, @ariabendix reports https://t.co/WuGpKn8Mqk pic.twitter.com/NbMiYWEFNG

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) May 26, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

A vast majority of those arrested, 41,318 from January 22 to April 29, have criminal records. But the number of detained non-criminal undocumented immigrants also rose sharply, reflecting the directive President Donald Trump issued in January that deemed any immigrant in the U.S. without documentation a priority for arrest and deportation.

“These statistics reflect President Trump’s commitment to enforce our immigration laws fairly and across the board,” Thomas Homan, the acting director of ICE, said in a statement. “If you look at the numbers, then men and women of ICE are still prioritizing these arrests in a way that makes sense,” he added in a phone call with reporters after the figures were released.

Acting on his promise to strictly enforce immigration laws, Trump issued an executive order on January 25 “to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.” The order effectively reversed an Obama Administration policy that directed ICE agents to prioritize for deportation undocumented immigrants convicted of violent crimes. Under Trump, all immigrants in the country illegally were subject to deportation.

Trump’s crack-down on illegal immigration, a stance that helped propel him to the White House, has not been implemented with impunity, however. A recently-passed spending bill does not include funding for Trump’s long-proposed border wall on the Mexican border. And federal judges throughout the country have stymied his efforts to ban or severely limit travel from a handful of mostly Muslim countries.

Still, Trump is on-track to match or surpass the arrests of undocumented immigrants at the Obama Administration’s peak in 2013, when over 662,000 undocumented immigrants were arrested. After a pointed effort to focus only on high-level criminals, that number dropped in subsequent years.

And although the number of migrants crossing the southern border has precipitously dipped–which accounts for the 12 percent decrease in total deportations this year so far–the rise in arrests of non-criminal undocumented immigrants suggests a greater willingness to enforce the existing rules.

According to the ICE figures, over 10,800 undocumented immigrants without criminal records have been arrested so far. More than 2,700 have been convicted of violent crimes, however, including assault, rape, kidnapping, or murder.

But of those that made up the 38 percent jump in arrests during the first three months of the Trump Administration, over half had been immigrants without criminal records. Their only crime: being in the country without documentation.

Omar Jadwat, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, sees the increase in arrests as a way to beef up numbers without implementing a broader strategy. “What it tells me is that the department is willing to put enforcement numbers ahead of any kind of strategy that would actually try to keep us all safer going forward,” he said.

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 Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months appeared first on Law Street.

Over a two-hour period on Monday, a federal appeals court in Richmond heard arguments on a case concerning President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, issued via executive order in March. The 13-judge panel was split between those who argued that Trump’s order should be examined on its merits and text, and others who contended that the directive should be viewed in the context of the president’s past statements on Muslim immigration.

The hearing, which was the first test for Trump’s contentious executive order in a federal appellate court, saw arguments from Jeffrey Wall, the acting solicitor general of the U.S. who defended the government’s position, and Omar Jadwat, a lawyer from the ACLU representing the plaintiffs. The fact that 13 judges heard arguments–in a court that usually consists of a three-judge panel–indicates the weight that this case holds.

Questions over how the travel ban should be viewed–either by its merits or in light of Trump’s public statements–were generally split between the Democratic-appointed judges and the Republican-appointed ones. Judge Robert King, appointed by President Bill Clinton, said Trump has “never repudiated what he said about the Muslim ban,” alluding to Trump’s calls for a freeze on Muslim immigration during the campaign.

Judge Pamela Harris, appointed by President Barack Obama, likewise read the travel ban as an anti-Muslim missive. The ban “has a disparate impact on Muslims,” she said. But Judge Paul Niemeyer, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, questioned the wisdom of reading too much into past statements. “Can we look at his college speeches?” he asked. “How about his speeches to businessmen 20 years ago?” He added: “I just don’t know where this stops.”

Wall, representing the Trump Administration in the hearing, said Trump’s past statements do not indicate any motives beyond the text of the order. That is, that it’s a national security measure. “Candidates talk about things on the campaign trail all the time,” he said. Wall also denied the charge that the ban is effectively a Muslim ban. “This is not a Muslim ban” he said. “It has nothing to do with religion. Its operation has nothing to do with religion.” 

Trump’s revised March order banned travel for 90 days from six countries in the Middle East and North Africa: Somalia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. It also froze admittance of refugees for 120 days, and dropped the number of refugees allowed to enter the U.S. from 120,000 to 50,000. Two federal judges, one in Maryland and one in Hawaii, blocked parts of Trump’s order in March.

Monday’s hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is an appeal of the Maryland ruling. Next Monday, a federal appeals court in Seattle will review an appeal of the Hawaii ruling. Ultimately, regardless of how the judges in Richmond rule, the case is likely to end up at the Supreme Court.

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 the Latest with Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

Storm clouds are gathering over the White House, and its resident lightning rod, Steve Bannon, might be in trouble. The first signs of a building storm popped up last week when Bannon, President Donald Trump’s chief strategist, was removed from the National Security Council. And then, reports of infighting began seeping out of the giant doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Bannon’s ideological and stylistic differences with Jared Kushner, Trump’s increasingly influential son-in-law, have led to a number of behind-closed-doors confrontations. And in an interview with the New York Post published on Tuesday, Trump indicated a personnel shake-up could be looming.

“I like Steve, but you have to remember, he was not involved in my campaign until very late,” Trump said in an interview with the Post’s Michael Goodwin. “I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve. I’m my own strategist, and it wasn’t like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary.”

Bannon was largely responsible for reviving Trump’s sinking campaign last fall, and his ethos has been evident in a number of Trump’s governing decisions: the doom-and-gloom “American carnage” speech on Inauguration Day; the executive order banning refugees and visitors from seven (then six) predominantly Muslim countries; the combative press conferences with the media–a.k.a. “America’s enemy.” Bannon has infused the Trump doctrine with his distinct flavor; Trump’s anti-elite message comes straight from Bannon’s playbook.

Meanwhile Kushner, a quiet, media-shy 36-year-old who grew up with a millionaire father (not to mention has a billionaire father-in-law), is gaining influence in Trump’s orbit. Bannon reportedly told Kushner that the reason the two can’t reach a compromise on certain issues is because “you’re a Democrat.” After the spat attracted media attention–an unwanted distraction at a time when Trump is dealing with rising conflicts with Syria and North Korea–the president told his two aides to figure things out.

Many attribute Bannon’s waning influence not only to his arguments with Kushner, but with his governing vision, which proved effective during the campaign, but has not resulted in many legislative successes. Bannon’s anti-immigrant, anti-establishment leanings certainly influenced the travel ban, which is now held up in court for the second time. And the failed health care attempt–too populist for hard-right conservatives and too cheap for moderates–was also smothered in Bannon’s fingerprints.

Kushner, on the other hand, has long been viewed as a moderating force, a check on Bannon’s more unsavory tendencies. For weeks, the tension between the two, if there was any, was hidden behind a host of distractions and the media-sucking gaffes of press secretary Sean Spicer and counselor Kellyanne Conway. But  the Bannon-Kushner feud is spilling into the public eye, and the image-conscious president has taken notice. As Trump succinctly put it in his interview with the Post: “Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will.”

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 Is Steve Bannon in Trump’s Dog House? appeared first on Law Street.

As the Trump Administration cracks down on illegal immigration in the U.S., immigrants have been crossing the border into Canada. In 2016, 1,222 immigrants fled the U.S. to Quebec alone–a fivefold increase from prior years–and there have been similar spikes in British Columbia.

Stories of frostbitten immigrants crossing into remote, unmarked border towns this winter garnered international attention and set conservative Canadians on the warpath, demanding stricter regulation of the border. But the rise of illegal immigration has also led to calls for alterations to (and even the repeal of) the Safe Third Country Agreement, which states that refugees must apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in. Many immigrants who were hoping to seek shelter in the U.S. are crossing into Canada illegally because they believe their asylum claims will be denied in the U.S. but upheld in Canada. If the act was repealed or suspended, immigrants could request asylum at official border crossings and enter the country legally.

In the Justin Trudeau era, Americans tend to glamorize Canada as the last moral outpost on the continent but the nation is not quite the united front we assume it to be. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week, nearly half of respondents want to send illegal immigrants crossing the Canadian border back to the U.S. and a similar number of respondents disapprove of how the government is handling illegal immigration. The subsets that were most in favor of deportation were men, adults without a college degree, higher income individuals, and older individuals. This is by no means a perfect representation of Canadian attitudes. Yet in an era where xenophobia is encouraged and even enshrined by executive orders, it’s important to keep an eye on shifts in public opinion.

The U.S.-Canada border has historically been a “soft” one but as illegal immigration rates climb, Canada appears to be moving slowly toward a more hardline stance. Trudeau has defended proposed legislation that would allow U.S. customs agents to question, search, and detain Canadians on Canadian soil. Trudeau publicly stated in February that the government would not take steps to quell irregular migration–yet by giving more power to U.S. customs agents, he is essentially passing the buck. Policing the border is a cooperative effort between the two countries and if Trudeau steps away from that responsibility, he will be enabling the Trump Administration.

Trudeau met with Trump earlier this year in a carefully coordinated encounter that let Trudeau hold strong on all of his positions without actively attacking Trump. While it is diplomatic common sense not to antagonize an ally, Trudeau could take a stronger stand against the Trump Administration through legislative action–such as scrapping the Safe Third Country Agreement. Trudeau has done outstanding work with the Syrian refugee population, striving to fast-track their entry into Canada so that tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have now been granted asylum in Canada–but can he keep it up?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Other Border: Pushback Against Illegal Immigration in Canada appeared first on Law Street.

Passengers on flights to the U.S. from 10 airports in the Middle East and North Africa will be barred from bringing electronics larger than a cell phone in their carry on baggage, according to the Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration. The new directive came late Monday, after “evaluated intelligence” was presented to Trump Administration officials that terrorists seek to smuggle “explosive devices in various consumer items.”

Officials said the new travel restrictions are not based on any imminent or specific threats; but rather a broader threat, and general intelligence reports. Taking effect at 3 a.m. Tuesday (airlines have just 96 hours to comply) the new directive will bar passengers from 10 airports in eight countries–none of which are included in President Donald Trump’s recent travel ban–from bringing large electronics in their carry-on luggage. This includes laptops, cameras, tablets, games, and other large devices. Flight crews will not have to comply with the new restrictions, which only apply to foreign carriers.

Affected cities include: Amman, Jordan; Cairo, Egypt; Istanbul, Turkey; Jeddah and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia; Kuwait City, Kuwait; Casablanca, Morocco; Doha, Qatar; and Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Royal Jordanian, one of the carriers affected by the new measures, sent out a tweet early Monday that indicated the device restrictions. It later deleted the tweet, but it was preserved by other users:

@RoyalJordanian This Tweet appears to have been deleted , cannot find it back . Is it still valid #ElectronicsBan pic.twitter.com/PYZXwa76MP

— Caroline Kere (@carolinekere) March 21, 2017

It is unclear how long the restrictions will be in place; the DHS, in a briefing with reporters Monday night, said the procedures would “remain in place until the threat changes.” Some technology experts are flummoxed by the new restrictions, saying that people wishing to do harm via a large electronic device could still use their check-in luggage as a conduit for explosives.

“It’s weird, because it doesn’t match a conventional threat model,” Nicholas Weaver, researcher at the International Computer Science Institute at the University of California, Berkeley told the Guardian. “If you assume the attacker is interested in turning a laptop into a bomb, it would work just as well in the cargo hold.”

The U.S. is not the only country issuing more restrictive travel measures. Early Tuesday morning, British news outlet Sky News tweeted:

Passengers travelling to the UK from certain countries will be banned from carrying most electronic devices on flights, Sky News understands pic.twitter.com/aCq7mrBNaM

— Sky News (@SkyNews) March 21, 2017

The report said that Britain, like the U.S., is not basing its new procedures on a specific threat, but “rather a response to the ongoing general threat to aviation.” Paul Schwartz, an information technology professor at the University of California, Berkeley Law School, told the Guardian that the terrorist threat has transcended borders, and targeting travel from a handful of countries might not alleviate the threat entirely.

“One potential problem with this approach where you single out countries is that you ignore the extent to which the terrorist threat is kind of state-less,” Schwartz said. “The terrorists have cells throughout the entire world.”

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 Electronics Banned on U.S.-Bound Flights from 10 Airports in Muslim Countries appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

U.S. Government Restricts Flying With Electronics from Eight Muslim-Majority Countries

The U.S. government has issued a restriction banning electronic devices such as laptops and iPads on flights from eight Muslim-majority countries. The countries affected by this restriction are not the same ones included in the now-infamous travel ban. The affected countries are Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Passengers from these eight countries will not be allowed to travel with electronics bigger than a cellphone in their carry on luggage, but they can place them in their checked luggage.

This is sure to pose an inconvenience for passengers traveling from the Middle East to the U.S. who will not be able to use their devices for work or entertainment on long flights. And most people are confused by the rules, as the new list includes countries that traditionally have been U.S. allies and are not included on the travel ban. Experts are also criticizing the logic behind the rule. If someone placed a bomb inside a laptop, it would be just as dangerous in the cargo hold as it would be in the cabin of a plane.

It is strange that this electronics ban is about security, but includes no countries on the #MuslimBan, which was also about security.

— Adrienne Mahsa (@AdrienneMahsa) March 21, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s campaign proposal of a “Muslim ban” is coming back to haunt him yet again: on Wednesday, two federal judges blocked Trump’s new travel ban, which would have restricted travel from six largely Muslim countries. The ban was set to go into effect at midnight. These rulings mark the second time Trump’s attempts at implementing such an order–essentially a veiled “Muslim ban”–have failed. 

Both judges ruled that the executive order amounted to religious discrimination. Judge Derrick Watson of the Federal District Court in Honolulu issued a temporary restraining order on Trump’s directive, on the grounds that it was “issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose.”

Hours later in Maryland, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that the purpose of the ban was “the effectuation of the proposed Muslim ban” that Trump repeatedly invoked during the campaign. The plaintiff in Honolulu was Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii. Elshikh argued that the ban would have barred his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting him. Syria is one of the six countries–along with Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran–included in Trump’s order.

The Maryland ruling was based on complaints by a cohort of nonprofit groups who work with refugees and immigrants. At a rally in Nashville after the Hawaii judge announced his ruling, Trump said he would take his case to the Supreme Court. He also suggested scrapping the second order, which dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries, and instead pursuing the first one in court.

“Let me tell you something. I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way,” Trump said. “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear.” While there is an argument that Trump was within his executive authority in issuing the order, there is not much tangible evidence that the order would alleviate a clear danger to U.S. national security. Americans have never been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from one of the six affected countries.

The government’s next move is likely going to be similar to what happened with the first order last month. An appeal of Watson’s ruling–which was broader than Chuang’s–would be heard by the same federal appeals court in San Francisco that upheld the legal challenge to Trump’s first order. That appeal followed a ruling by a judge in Washington.

Since the issuance of his first travel ban in January, Trump has faced stiff resistance from Democrats, advocacy groups, and even some members of his own party. The Trump Administration contends the order–which freezes travel from the six countries for at least 90 days, and pauses refugee admissions for at least 120 days–is legal, and is based on guidelines the Obama Administration originally set.

But so far, Trump’s argument has been defeated by his own backlog of statements that seem to undermine his claim that his actions are just meant to protect national security. The legal battle is sure to continue, but for now at least, Trump might need to go back to the drawing board.

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 Trump’s Travel Ban Defeated in Court Once Again appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Second Travel Ban Gets Thumbs Down from Federal Judge

President Donald Trump’s new version of the travel ban for six majority-Muslim countries was supposed to go into effect today. But last night, a Hawaiian federal judge temporarily blocked it, citing religious discrimination. Then overnight, a second federal judge in Maryland also ruled against the ban.

As expected, Trump got pretty upset–so upset that he was actually two hours late for a rally in Nashville last night, as his staff tried to improve his mood by showing him some comments from supporters. But at the rally, he still lashed out at Judge Derrick K. Watson. Trump shouted, accused Watson of ruling based on political motivations, and said, “this ruling makes us look weak, which by the way we no longer are, believe me.”

Watson’s decision caused the hashtag #BoycottHawaii to trend on Twitter as some Trump supporters expressed their frustration with the ruling. But for others, this wasn’t a bad thing:

Trump’s travel ban is derailing US tourism but the #BoycottHawaii or promise of a TrumpFreeZone is making it one of the hottest destinations

— Norm Clark #resist (@Normsmusic) March 16, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s revised executive order blocking travel from six countries in the Middle East and North Africa faced its first legal challenge on Wednesday. Doug Chin, the attorney general of Hawaii, is suing the Trump Administration. The order, Chin said in his complaint, violates the Constitution and will have deleterious effects on his state’s economy and educational institutions.

A hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, and the travel ban is set to go live on Thursday. While Trump’s first order, issued during his initial days in office, faced a torrent of litigation, the revised order, released on Monday, did not experience any immediate challenges. Lawyers and state attorneys general are taking a more cautious approach to legal action; they are taking time to examine the new order’s legality, while acknowledging that it was more carefully written than its predecessor.

In the State of Hawaii’s brief, which requests a temporary restraining order on the travel ban, the plaintiffs argue the ban “severely damages the State’s schools and universities.” The plaintiffs also said the executive order “detracts from the University of Hawaii’s diversity and impedes the State’s commitment to international scholarship and global exchange—inflicting the very harms Congress’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination was designed to prevent.”

Trump’s new travel ban is different from the initial directive. Residents of six countries–Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and Syria–will not be allowed into the U.S. for at least 90 days. Iraq, which was included in the initial order, has been removed from the list of affected countries. And in what is the new order’s potential bulwark against legal action, green card-holders and people who already have visas from the six countries are allowed entry into the U.S. Like the first executive order, the country’s refugee program will be put on ice for at least 120 days.

Another of Trump’s immigration policies was hit with a legal challenge on Wednesday. Dennis Herrera, the city attorney of San Francisco, asked a federal district court judge to block the president’s January 25 executive order. That order threatens to withhold federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities,” jurisdictions that shield undocumented immigrants from federal immigration authorities. “This court action is designed to protect our residents and provide financial clarity,” Herrera said in a statement.

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 Hawaii AG Files Lawsuit Over Trump’s Revised Travel Ban appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday morning the White House announced that President Donald Trump–presumably after taking a break from tweeting about everything from wire “tapps” to Arnold Schwarzenegger–signed a new executive order to revise his controversial travel ban.

Unlike the hectic nature of the initial executive order’s rollout, the revised order was announced throughout Monday morning, with Kellyanne Conway going on “Fox & Friends” to explain the alterations, the administration releasing a somewhat comprehensive fact sheet, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions explaining the legality and importance of the new order. Additionally, unlike the original order, which took effect immediately, the updated version will not be implemented for another 10 days. No cameras were around for the actual signing.

.@POTUS has signed a new executive order that will keep the nation safe. Read it at https://t.co/XcBwwEJJHF pic.twitter.com/Yx2mikXl2A

— Sean Spicer (@PressSec) March 6, 2017

Here’s what you need to know about this new EO:

1. The 90-day travel ban will prohibit the issuance of new visas for people from six countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). While the initial order targeted seven countries, Iraq is no longer on the list because “the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal.”
2. The order only applies to people who do not already have a visa, which was a point of confusion for the last order. Therefore, green card-holders and current visa-holders will not be affected.
3. There is no longer an exception for people of minority religions. The previous order and subsequent comments by President Trump included a not-so-subtle hint that Christian refugees could be prioritized.
4. Decisions on applications for refugee status are suspended for 120 days, just like the old EO.
5. The cap for the number of refugees that the U.S. will take in 2017 is now set at 50,000 people. The Obama Administration had previously set a goal to accept 110,000 refugees in 2017 (which led to that stupid Skittles tweet).
6. The indefinite ban on Syrian refugees has been changed to a ban for a 120-day period, during which the refugee program will be reviewed.

As CNN reported, this new executive order was originally planned to be signed last Wednesday. However, after the unexpectedly positive reception of Trump’s address to Congress, the administration decided to ride the wave of positive coverage before instituting an order that surely would ruffle some feathers.

If you need any proof that the Trump Administration was right to expect that the new order would make people angry, within minutes of the announcement of the order’s signing, organizations like the ACLU  released statements criticizing the new ban.

Just in: @ACLU statement on new Trump travel ban — “a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws” pic.twitter.com/WSaKmTkcSJ

— David Mack (@davidmackau) March 6, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About President Trump’s New Travel Ban appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Felix Walworth received the contract from the organizer of the music festival he would soon be playing, South by Southwest (SXSW). “If SXSW determines, in its sole discretion, that showcasing acts or their representatives have acted in ways that adversely affect the viability of their official SXSW showcase, the following actions are available to SXSW,” the contract said. It listed a number of consequences, including: “SXSW will notify the appropriate U.S. immigration authorities of the above actions.”

Walworth, whose band Told Slant was slated to perform at the festival in Austin, Texas next week, promptly tweeted his response:

After looking through this contract sent to me by sxsw I have decided to cancel Told Slant’s performance at the festival pic.twitter.com/rI2Xv0duJl

— Told Slant (@Felixixix666) March 2, 2017

Unlike other festivals that focus on a few major headliners and medium-level acts, SXSW, which had its inaugural festival in 1987, is one of the world’s premier showcases for emerging artists. According to Roland Swenson, the festival’s managing director, 62 international artists are slated to perform at this year’s festival. This year, SXSW will feature an event called “Contrabanned: #MusicUnites,” which will host acts from countries affected by President Donald Trump’s failed travel ban.

After Walworth, also a member of the bands Eskimeaux and Bellows, canceled his performance, Swenson issued a statement. “We were sorry to learn that one of our invited performers chose to cancel his performance at this year’s SXSW Music Festival due to a misunderstanding of our policies regarding international artists,” he said. Swenson continued:

We understand that given the current political climate surrounding immigration, the language that was published seems strong. Violating U.S. immigration law has always carried potentially severe consequences, and we would be remiss not to warn our participating acts of the likely repercussions.

Swenson said the clause in question is intended as “a safeguard to provide SXSW with a means to respond to an act that does something truly egregious, such as disobeying our rules about pyrotechnics on stage, starting a brawl in a club, or causing serious safety issues.”

Other artists, 35 as of Friday afternoon, joined Walworth in demanding SXSW to apologize, and to “immediately drop this clause from their contract.” In a letter directed at SXSW, the artists said: “SXSW is a well respected institution and has a responsibility to show leadership by refusing to collaborate with the government’s campaign of fear and hate toward non-citizens.”

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 SXSW Contract Threatens to Report Artists to U.S. Immigration Authorities appeared first on Law Street.

A federal appeals court late Thursday night affirmed a lower court’s decision to block President Donald Trump’s executive order that banned travel from seven countries to the U.S. The ruling is a blow to Trump’s efforts to clamp down on refugees and immigrants from “terror prone” countries the White House says pose a threat to U.S. security. Trump said the ruling was a “political decision,” and pledged to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

For now, refugees and visa-holders–who have already been vetted and admitted to the U.S. by the Department of Homeland Security–from Syria, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya will be allowed to travel and settle in the U.S. Trump’s executive order, issued on January 27, barred refugees from entering the U.S. for at least 120 days, and visa-holders for at least 90 days. Syrians–refugees and travelers–would have been blocked indefinitely.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, deliberated for two days before coming to a conclusion. The three-judge panel unanimously agreed that the executive order could violate the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from denying “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The three judges, appointees of Presidents Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, said: “we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.” Trump tweeted his disapproval just moments after the court’s decision:

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

The road to the appeals court began last Friday, when a district court judge in Seattle granted a temporary restraining order on the travel ban. That judge, James Robart, sided with the states of Washington and Minnesota, the plaintiffs in the case, and said that because of the travel ban, the states “are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” The White House immediately appealed to the court in San Francisco, and after a day of oral arguments and two days of deliberations, the appeals court affirmed Robart’s ruling.

The appeals court was unconvinced by the administration’s argument that the judiciary has no authority to question executive actions involving national security. “It is beyond question,” the decision said, “that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” The court did say the government should enjoy deference in matters of national security, but reiterated that those decisions are not “unreviewable.”

The Trump Administration will likely file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court within the next few days. With the pending confirmation of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, the court has eight justices, which many consider ideologically split 4-4. If the case ends up in their docket, a 4-4 vote would keep the appeals court’s ruling in place. A Supreme Court hearing and decision could come as early as next week.

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 Federal Appeals Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

What many Super Bowl viewers noticed on Sunday was the subtle–and sometimes not so subtle–way that commercials during the game seemed to relate to Donald Trump in one way or another. Recently, his immigration ban has upset leading figures in America and abroad, and on Sunday, 97 U.S. tech companies filed a joint court brief opposing it.

In case you missed them, here are some of the most politically outspoken, and funny, ads from Super Bowl night:

Budweiser

Arguably the most famous American beer, Budweiser, originated from a collaboration between two German immigrants; Adolphus Busch and Eberhard Anheuser. The new Bud commercial tells a dramatized story of Busch arriving by boat to the United States where he is initially heckled and told to go home. He then meets Anheuser who buys him a beer, marking the start of a friendship that produced the first American lager. That Americans wouldn’t have their Bud on a hot summer day if it weren’t for a couple of immigrants, might come as a shock to some. While the ad may not be completely true to the original story, it does tell a compelling story of the important role that immigrants played in American beer industry.

Wow. @Budweiser‘s Super Bowl ad is just wow. pic.twitter.com/j3AMrKz565

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 4, 2017

Coca-Cola

Coca-Cola’s ad is a collection of voices singing “America The Beautiful” in different languages, showing faces from all over the world, and ending with the words, “together is beautiful.” Short and simple but very expressive.

Our diversity is our strength. America The Beautiful #SuperBowl #Coke pic.twitter.com/vhEBvJQ38d

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) February 6, 2017

It’s a 10 Haircare

The haircare product line offered a punch at Donald Trump’s famous hairdo with its ad’s opening line: “We’re in for at least four years of awful hair.” The ad went on showing all kinds of hair—old, young, facial, chest, dog hair, and much more.

Airbnb

Airbnb’s ad is a compilation of faces of different ethnicities accompanied by the text, “No matter who you are, where you’re from, who you love, or who you worship, we all belong.” It ends with the hashtag #weaccept. The company didn’t just make a subtle but fairly clear jab at President Trump; it also promised to provide 100,000 refugees with a place to stay and has a longtime goal to accommodate even more displaced people in the coming years.

Acceptance starts with all of us. #weaccept pic.twitter.com/btgqyYHVTK

— Airbnb (@Airbnb) February 6, 2017

84 Lumber

Probably the most obvious, and definitely the most tear-inducing, Super Bowl ad came from 84 Lumber, which showed a mother and daughter from a Latin-American country making the long and strenuous journey to the American border. The original ad is almost six minutes long, but Fox News banned the end from airing on TV, arguing that it was “too controversial.” The full-length ad shows the mother and daughter facing a wall, similar to the one Trump has talked about. The ad ends with the text, “The will to succeed is always welcome here.” The construction business relies heavily on workers from Mexico and other Latin-American countries, and an employee shortage will likely drive up construction prices.

Our complete Super Bowl story. See a mother & daughter’s symbolic journey toward becoming legal American citizens. https://t.co/AiI3MLrVd5

— 84 Lumber Company (@84LumberNews) February 6, 2017

Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga has been praised for her halftime show during which she was lowered down from the ceiling like Spiderman then proceeded to dance, play piano and keytar, and finally threw the microphone off the stage before jumping off herself. It didn’t seem like a particularly blatant political statement, but if you listen closer, it very well could have been. After starting off singing “America the Beautiful” she quickly switched to “This Land is Your Land,” a song that has also been popular among those protesting Trump’s immigration ban.

Gaga also performed her song “Born This Way,” which is about being who you are and contains the line, “No matter gay, straight, or bi, lesbian, transgendered life, I’m on the right track baby I was born to survive.” During the show, over 800 Texas high school students contributed to the magnificence by waving coordinated lights below the stage while singing the line “Why don’t you stay.” Maybe the show wasn’t a political statement, maybe it was just Gaga being inclusive and herself, but really, that too is a statement.

Lady Gaga hugs teen during halftime show: “It was an amazing surprise” https://t.co/dbzqE8wfHgpic.twitter.com/4YnZNzSnUs

— billboard (@billboard) February 6, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Intentional or Not, These Super Bowl Ads Became Political appeared first on Law Street.

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.

Hashtag of the day: everyone’s talking about the #SuperBowl: the New England Patriot’s dramatic comeback, the first overtime in Super Bowl history, Lady Gaga’s Spiderman-like halftime show, and the many ads with political messages about diversity and acceptance. When you’re ready to tackle Monday, read on for today’s news and rants:

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

What’s New with the Travel Ban?

Things are moving quickly; on Friday, federal Judge James Robart in Seattle temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s travel ban on people from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Trump responded by calling Judge Robart a “so-called judge” on Twitter and pledged to work to overturn the ruling. Trump claims that letting travelers in will put national security at risk and that we should all blame Judge Robart if there’s a terrorist attack–drawing criticism from many Democrats and quite a few Republicans.

Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2017

On Saturday afternoon, Trump’s Administration filed a notice of appeal. But on Sunday a federal appeals court said “nope” and that Judge Robart’s ruling stands. Both sides have until close of business today to file briefs before the 9th Circuit makes a final ruling.

The states of Minnesota and Washington, which filed the lawsuit in the first place, are now joined by close to 100 tech companies that are arguing that the ban would harm their businesses. Apple, Google, Airbnb, eBay, Lyft, Microsoft, Uber, and many others filed briefs last night, claiming that a travel ban would make it difficult to hire employees and that “immigrants make many of the Nation’s greatest discoveries.” The case continues today and the end of this long road is likely the Supreme Court.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 6, 2017 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.

Hashtag of the day: #DeleteUber was trending over the weekend as the news was dominated by chaos and confusion over the Trump Administration travel ban. If you’re wondering what that hashtag stands for, check this out. Then read on for the latest rants.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Travel Ban Causes Chaos and Protests

On Friday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. The order came abruptly and caused immense chaos at airports around the country, as people arriving from the affected countries were detained. Serious protests erupted, mainly at airports, and the move has been sharply condemned by, well, most people internationally.

It will probably have serious consequences in many ways. American academic institutions, hospitals, and businesses rely on experts and professionals from other countries. Iraq has already said it will retaliate. And an online petition in the U.K., aiming to keep Trump from making a state visit, quickly got over a million signatures.

IMAGE: Protests at airports across the United States pic.twitter.com/7OEqC9HtaT

— The Int’l Spectator (@spectatorindex) January 29, 2017

Initially, the ban also applied to green card holders and people with dual citizenship. Stories about students being stranded after a vacation or people unable to get home flooded the media over the weekend. An Iraqi man who worked as a translator for the U.S. military for a decade was detained for 18 hours at JFK Airport in New York.

As of now, it appears that no one is being detained or held at an airport anymore and there have been exemptions for 392 green card holders who have been allowed into the country. Fifteen attorneys general have issued a statement condemning Trump’s actions, calling it an “unconstitutional, un-American and unlawful Executive Order.” There is still confusion over what the order will actually mean, but the courts, big companies like Google and Facebook, celebrities, and ordinary citizens are all fighting back.

The synagogue where President Trump’s grandchild goes to preschool has condemned his travel ban https://t.co/jpunSV0ReA pic.twitter.com/0GbC3AM3ZG

— CNN International (@cnni) January 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

After President Donald Trump’s refugee and travel ban caused chaos and protests at airports on Saturday, New York taxis refused to pick up passengers from JFK airport. But taxi competitor Uber took advantage of the situation, by continuing to offer rides and restricting surge prices–and is now being criticized as inappropriate and opportunistic. #DeleteUber has trended as a result.

The NY Taxi Workers Alliance announced yesterday evening that it was going to cease picking passengers up at the airport:

New York Taxi Workers Stand Up. Feeling proud. #Strike #NoBanNoWall #NoMuslimBan pic.twitter.com/4SDwpiBG81

— Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour) January 29, 2017

About 30 minutes after the strike was announced, Uber tweeted out that it would still be operating and wouldn’t implement surge prices–a normal phenomenon when there’s a lot of demand.

Surge pricing has been turned off at #JFK Airport. This may result in longer wait times. Please be patient.

— Uber NYC (@Uber_NYC) January 29, 2017

Uber later declared that it didn’t intend to make a political statement. It read: “We’re sorry for any confusion about our earlier tweet—it was not meant to break up any strike. We wanted people to know they could use Uber to get to and from JFK at normal prices, especially tonight.” But, many people were still upset by Uber’s move, and the hashtag #DeleteUber shows why:

Last night I logged in to #deleteuber. Felt reluctance for a split second. then remembered the Montgomery Bus Boycott & felt ashamed. pic.twitter.com/D9WEtmkz6W

— wikipedia brown (@eveewing) January 29, 2017

1. Open the Uber app.
2. Tap ☰ > Tap Help> Account and Payment> Account Settings and Ratings> Delete my Uber Account.#deleteUber #MuslimBan pic.twitter.com/RGtla4R5Tf

— Crescent (@TheLostAmelia) January 29, 2017

Dear @Uber_DC and @Uber, by prioritizing profits over human (and American) values you’ve lost a VIP super user. #DeleteUber #NoBanNoWall pic.twitter.com/39arOnf8D7

— RobertMichaelMurray (@rmmageddon) January 29, 2017

Uber’s major competitor, Lyft, also drove to and from JFK last night. But this morning, Lyft released a statement, pledging its support to the protesters, and a promise to donate $1 million to the ACLU over the next four years. The cofounders, John Zimmer and Logan Green, wrote in a blog post:

This weekend, Trump closed the country’s borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin. Banning people of a particular faith or creed, race or identity, sexuality or ethnicity, from entering the U.S. is antithetical to both Lyft’s and our nation’s core values. We stand firmly against these actions, and will not be silent on issues that threaten the values of our community.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #DeleteUber Trends After Company Continues Operating at JFK Airport appeared first on Law Street.

At almost 5 p.m. on Friday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, a travel ban, restricting entry to the United States. It has been dubbed by many a “Muslim ban” because of the countries it singles out and Trump’s consistent campaign promises to that effect. Chaos reigned Friday night and into Saturday, as permanent U.S. residents from those seven countries who were traveling abroad were prevented from returning home, protests were launched at numerous domestic airports, and late last night, a federal judge stayed the order for individuals with valid visas who are already in transit or being held in the U.S.

What does the Order Say?

The order is in almost every way a unilateral move by President Trump. It prevents citizens of seven countries–Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen–from entering the U.S. for 90 days. There are some narrow exceptions, but they’re limited mainly to diplomats. The order heavily invokes memories of 9/11, despite the fact that none of the countries listed were ever tied to those attacks.

Refugees, from any nation, are banned for 120 days. And per the executive order, Syrian refugees are banned indefinitely. When refugees are allowed back in, Christian refugees will be prioritized. According to the order:

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

Despite claims from the Trump Administration that this is not a “Muslim ban” Rudy Giuliani claims that Trump asked him how to legally create a “Muslim ban.”

Giuliani admits Trump asked him how to “do a Muslim ban legally.” So they focused on nationality. Start at 3:00. https://t.co/9orjNwQBGy

— Evan McMullin (@Evan_McMullin) January 29, 2017

For a closer look at the order, check out an annotated version by the New York Times.

How Does it Work in Practice?

It’s very unclear how this order is supposed to work, and from the second it was signed, it sparked confusion. Reportedly, the Department of Homeland Security–the department that has to implement it–was not consulted until right before the order was signed. Certain norms, like consulting the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, appear to have not been undertaken. And once the order was signed, the Department of Homeland Security’s legal understanding of how to deal with it was allegedly overridden by Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, a top policy aide. The “two Steves” insisted that legal permanent residents, also known as green card holders, from the listed countries be stopped from re-entering the U.S.

That implementation began. People who are legal permanent residents from the seven countries and had left the U.S. for whatever reason–students, individuals visiting family, vacationers–were restricted from coming back in to the U.S. Protests swelled at airports:

“No hate, no fear, Muslims are welcome here”

— Protests at JFK airport where people have been detained after Trump’s executive order pic.twitter.com/SvXba2C0r5

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) January 28, 2017

The #MuslimBan airport protests. #NoBanNoWall #Resist @realDonaldTrump @POTUS pic.twitter.com/Ulw8xcOARN

— Maxim Dmitriev (@max_dmitriev07) January 29, 2017

Airport protests at #JFK, #LAX, #SFO, Dulles, O’Hare and growing. #NoMuslimBan #NoBanNoWall #RefugeesWelcome #ResistOften pic.twitter.com/OZZ9dexGXo

— Mike Hudema (@MikeHudema) January 28, 2017

Lawyers began suing to block the order, and last night Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn ruled that the government cannot hold legal residents who are already in the U.S., or restrict those who are in transit from entering. This still leaves a lot of people in flux, and the legal battles are sure to continue. In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security said it would continue to comply with Trump’s directives.

National Outrage

The ban was immediately met with outrage.

We will not allow a Muslim ban in the United States of America. Here’s what I said at Logan Airport tonight. #NoBanNoWall pic.twitter.com/XqeS9Iy14e

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) January 29, 2017

If you do support the #MuslimBan today, remember this: you will be remembered as the villains of our children’s history books tomorrow.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) January 28, 2017

I want to repeat: Green card holders were handcuffed, their social media was reviewed, and they were asked their views on Trump#MuslimBan

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) January 28, 2017

It’s unclear what’s next. But the outrage is warranted–this is an unprecedented move on the part of the Trump Administration. It separates families. It screams isolationism and bigotry. It’s likely unconstitutional. And for many, it’s a nightmare.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Confusion, Chaos, and Court Orders: What’s Going on With Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

About a year after resuming the diplomatic relationship with Cuba, the U.S. government has just approved direct commercial flights from 10 American cities to Havana. This is yet another step toward thawing a relationship that has been icy since 1961.

A statement by the U.S. Department of Transportation reads:

Today we take another important step toward delivering on President Obama’s promise to reengage Cuba […] Restoring regular air service holds tremendous potential to reunite Cuban American families and foster education and opportunities for American businesses of all sizes.

Officials first signed an agreement to open up American flights to Cuba in February—for the first time in more than half a century. Last month, the Transportation Department approved flights to other cities in Cuba, but now the time has come to allow air travel to the the capital city, Havana. American Airlines will receive the biggest share of flights, at 35 per week, closely followed by JetBlue with 27.

Thinking about traveling to #Cuba? Watch this video from @USEmbCuba on 5 things to know before you go! https://t.co/mHQ429chlC

— Travel – State Dept (@TravelGov) July 7, 2016

The American cities that the flights will depart from are: Atlanta, Charlotte, North Carolina, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, New Jersey, New York, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale.

Florida has the highest Cuban-American population in the U.S., and so four cities will launch the most flights, at 85 per week. Demand will be high from Cuban-Americans, according to the Miami Herald.

Since Fidel Castro seized power and started collaborating with the Soviet Union in the early 1960’s, there has been mutual mistrust and economic sanctions on Cuba. The trade embargo also meant a travel ban, so that Americans could not visit the island legally.

When Obama came into office, he started working towards easing the bans and sanctions, in an effort to normalize the relationship. In 2009 he lifted the travel ban for Cuban-Americans, making it easier for people to visit relatives and travel freely.

La Habana, Cuba – Raw & Beauty, Old Glory | GLOB▲L – M▲G▲ZINE https://t.co/rW8jNvTa6z pic.twitter.com/8ABATUhrIa

— Be ▲rtist Be ▲rt (@BeArtist_BeArt) July 7, 2016

However, the ban on American tourism in Cuba is still in place, so airlines will be required to record the reason why passengers are traveling there. But if you don’t have relatives on the island and want to visit, don’t fret. There are 12 scenarios where you could still be allowed to visit. For example, you’re ok to go if it’s for religious activities, to make a public performance, or compete in an athletic competition.

The decision about the flights won’t be final until after a 30-day trial period during which potential complaints or objections will be handled. The first U.S. to Cuba flight is scheduled to fly from Fort Lauderdale to Santa Clara in September.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Approves Direct Flights From 10 Cities to Havana appeared first on Law Street.