DC Judge Leery of Wading Into Travel Ban
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan appeared to question whether the court in Washington, D.C., should delve into the litigation surrounding President Donald Trump's recent travel ban proclamation.
November 02, 2017 at 12:44 PM
11 minute read
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., appeared hesitant to create a new path for litigation against President Donald Trump's latest travel ban proclamation Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said in a hearing that while district courts in Maryland and Hawaii have already enjoined the Sept. 24 order implementing travel restrictions on immigrants from eight countries, she is not eager to wade into immigration and national security issues better left for the executive and legislative branches to handle.
“This court is very leary about ordering people to be admitted [into the country],” the judge said.
The lawsuit, brought by several Iranian-American advocacy groups and affected individuals, asks the court to enjoin the Sept. 24 order as well as an Oct. 23 memorandum and subsequent Oct. 24 order that bans refugees from 11 countries for 90 days, and subjects them to enhanced vetting procedures.
The groups originally brought the lawsuit in February, and amended it to address the second travel ban order issued March 6. Chutkan stayed the litigation following injunctions against that order from courts in Maryland and Hawaii.
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer partner John Freedman, who argued Thursday for the plaintiffs, said the other two courts who enjoined the travel ban did so on different legal grounds, and that the court should consider the novel theories the D.C. case presents, such as that the proclamation is contrary to U.S. law under the Administrative Procedures Act.
He said U.S. Supreme Court precedent indicated it would actually prefer multiple challenges in different circuits, should the issue rise to that level, because it would give them a plethora of arguments to consider. He added the D.C. Circuit has particular expertise in government affairs, and that the record on travel ban cases would be enhanced by its input.
“I think the D.C. Circuit's influence in this could be the critical difference,” Freedman told the judge.
DOJ lawyer Hashim Mooppan, who argued for the government, said the plaintiffs have not suffered irreparable harm because of the existing injunctions. Mooppan also argued the courts should not be involved in reviewing policy determinations from the executive branch at all. Responding to the plaintiffs' arguments that Trump intended to ban Muslims with the order and that cabinet secretaries from the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of State were carrying out those wishes, Mooppan said it would be “remarkable” if entire agencies were engaged in a “massive charade” in issuing the policy.
“This court should think very carefully before it levels such a serious charge,” Mooppan told the judge.
The judge said she plans to rule on the preliminary injunction motion soon, but did not offer a timeline.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., appeared hesitant to create a new path for litigation against President Donald Trump's latest travel ban proclamation Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said in a hearing that while district courts in Maryland and Hawaii have already enjoined the Sept. 24 order implementing travel restrictions on immigrants from eight countries, she is not eager to wade into immigration and national security issues better left for the executive and legislative branches to handle.
“This court is very leary about ordering people to be admitted [into the country],” the judge said.
The lawsuit, brought by several Iranian-American advocacy groups and affected individuals, asks the court to enjoin the Sept. 24 order as well as an Oct. 23 memorandum and subsequent Oct. 24 order that bans refugees from 11 countries for 90 days, and subjects them to enhanced vetting procedures.
The groups originally brought the lawsuit in February, and amended it to address the second travel ban order issued March 6. Chutkan stayed the litigation following injunctions against that order from courts in Maryland and Hawaii.
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readDemocratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
7 minute readBig Law Communications, Media Attorneys Brace for Changes Under Trump
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lawyer as Whistleblower? Associate Sues Firm
- 2New Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
- 3Ex-Big Law Attorney Disbarred for Defrauding $1 Million of Client Money
- 4'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
- 5Productivity Suite Startup Macro Announces $12 Million Funding Round
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250