Appeals Court Relies Heavily on Cato Work Against the Immigration Ban

Yesterday, inIRAP v. Trump, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit —which handles appeals from district courts in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina—uphelda preliminary injunction against portions of President Trump ’s Executive Order banning entry of individuals from six African and Middle Eastern countries. On critical points, thecourt ’s opinion and the concurring opinions cite or rely upon Cato ’s work about the order.Ten of the 13 judges found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the order violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The court ’s opinion citesCato ’s amicus brief to resolve a preliminary matter: whether the executive order —it calls it “EO-2”—“injured” any of the individual plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argued that one man in particular would be separated from his wife due to the order’s ban on visas. The government admitted that this would constitute an injury, but argued that the injury would not be “im minent” because he has offered no reason to believe that the ban on entry “will delay the issuance of [his wife’s] visa.” To this, the court responded (p. 35):But this ignores that Section 2(c) appears to operate by design to delay the issuance of visas to foreign nationals. Section 2(c) ’s “short pause” on entry effectively halts the issuance of visas for ninety days—as the Government acknowledges, it “would be pointless to issue...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs