Trump Executive Orders Reshape Immigration Policy
On Jan. 27 the Trump administration issued an executive order that immediately affected the U.S. immigration system.
October 01, 2017 at 12:00 AM
8 minute read
On Jan. 27, the Trump administration issued an executive order (EO) that immediately affected the U.S. immigration system. This was the first of a series of executive actions that are reshaping the interpretation and application of U.S. immigration law.
The Jan. 27 EO banned travel to the United States for nationals of seven primarily Muslim countries and suspended the admission of refugees. Ambiguous terminology used in the EO was broadly interpreted by U.S. Department of State (DOS) consular officers abroad and by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers. Due to the apparent lack of advance departmental coordination for the implementation of the EO, chaos prevailed at U.S. ports of entry and international airports as travelers were refused admission or denied boarding of aircraft bound for the United States. A U.S. district court subsequently issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of the travel ban and suspension of the refugee admissions program.
On March 6, EO 13780 was released narrowing the scope of the travel ban to nationals of six countries. Iraq was removed from the original list of countries whose citizens were banned from traveling to the United States. Also, the March 6 EO clarified that only those nationals of designated countries who had no valid U.S. visa were to be affected by the travel ban, no previously issued visa would be revoked by the EO and those with visas revoked by the Jan. 27 EO would be issued a travel document to return to the United States. Persons exempted from the travel ban include, inter alia, U.S. resident aliens, dual nationals traveling with a passport of a nonrestricted country, certain diplomats and those already granted asylum or admitted as a refugee.
This content has been archived.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 AllBusiness Immigration Practices Brace for ‘Dramatic’ Changes Under Second Trump Presidency
'Close Our Borders?' Senate Judiciary Committee Examines Economics, Legal Predicate for Mass Deportation Proposal
3 minute readAnticipating a New Era of 'Extreme Vetting,' Big Law Immigration Attys Prep for Demand Surge
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
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