I’ve shown my opposition to President Donald Trump clearly in some previous columns, and I planned on focusing strictly on employment law this time. But then the federal judge in Hawaii who issued a temporary restraining order on the administration’s travel ban illustrated what courts in employment cases should—but choose not to—do.
What caught my eye was how the judge allowed Trump’s words as a presidential candidate to buttress the challengers’ claims that the travel ban was an unconstitutional religious test on entry to the U.S.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
