SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge in Seattle on Saturday partially lifted a Trump administration ban on certain refugees after two groups argued that the policy prevented people from some mostly Muslim countries from reuniting with family living legally in the United States.
U.S. District Judge James Robart heard arguments Thursday in lawsuits from the American Civil Liberties Union and Jewish Family Service, which say the ban causes irreparable harm and puts some people at risk. Government lawyers argued that the ban is needed to protect national security.
Robart ordered the federal government to process certain refugee applications. He said his order applies to people “with a bona fide relationship to a person or entity within the United States.”
President Donald Trump restarted the refugee program in October “with enhanced vetting capabilities.”
The day before his executive order, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats sent a memo to Trump saying certain refugees must be banned unless additional security measures are implemented.
It applies to the spouses and minor children of refugees who have already settled in the U.S. and suspends the refugee program for people coming from 11 countries, nine of which are mostly Muslim.
In his decision, Robart wrote that “former officials detailed concretely how the Agency Memo will harm the United States’ national security and foreign policy interests.”
Robart said his order restores refugee procedures in programs to what they were before the memo and noted that this already includes very thorough vetting of individuals.
In a statement, Department of Justice spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said: “We disagree with the Court’s ruling and are currently evaluating the next steps.”
The ACLU argued the memo provided no evidence for why additional security was needed and didn’t specify a timeframe for implementing the changes. The groups say the process for imposing the policy violated a federal law.
August Flentje, a Justice Department attorney, told the judge that the ban is temporary and “is a reasonable and appropriate way for agency heads to tackle gaps” in the screening process.
The lawsuits from the two groups were consolidated and represent refugees who have been blocked from entering the country.
The ACLU represents a Somali man living in Washington state who is trying to bring his family to the U.S. They have gone through extensive vetting, have passed security and medical clearances, and just need travel papers, but those were denied after the ban.
Lisa Nowlin, staff attorney for the ACLU of Washington, said in a statement they were happy for their client — “who has not yet had the opportunity to celebrate a single birthday with his younger son in person — will soon have the opportunity to hold his children, hug his wife in the very near future, and be together again as a family for the first time in four years.”
Two other refugees included in the Jewish Family Service lawsuit are former Iraqi interpreters for the U.S. Army whose lives are at risk because of their service.
Another is a transgender woman in Egypt “living in such extremely dangerous circumstances that the U.S. government itself had expedited her case until the ban came down,” said Mariko Hirose, a lawyer with the Jewish Family Service case.
Yet another is a single woman in Iraq, Hirose said. Her husband divorced her after she was kidnapped and raped by militants because she worked with an American company. Her family is in the U.S. but she’s stranded by the ban, Hirose said.
___
Associated Press writer Chris Grygiel contributed to this report.
So Trump administration can’t get the vetting side right, quelle surprise. They want more vetting but can’t figure out how to do more vetting. There are policies in place but can’t figure out the timeline to make them meet their own standards.
Has anyone still in Justice ever worked in government before?
I read both the decision by the 9th circuit on the Travel Ban and the decision by the Washington Fed district court on the refugee policy. They both effectively make the case that immigration is an area of law that is the purview of Congress and Trump’s EO’s are governed by Immigration and Nationality Act. Trump has exceeded his authority under the act and therefore his actions (at least with respect to those who have a bona fide relationship to the US) are unconstitutional.
In the refugee case, there are also numerous instances of the Trump team messing up the vetting completely and applying restrictions to people who have already received some status in the US (similar to travel ban 1). In addition, there is the overreach on the INA and the Refugee Act.
I think these are two solidly written decisions which borrow from conservative arguments to make the point that Trump’s actions are not constitutional. The refugee case even cited a conservative argument for the Court striking down DAPA as an example of executive overreach.
SCOTUS will have a tough time overturning these rulings. I’m not saying it won’t happen because of the politics of the court, but on the law and reasoning the better move for SCOTUS would be to let the decisions stand as the lower courts are the triers of fact and the legal argument stated here: that there is a separation of powers and immigration is in Congress’ bucket and therefore POTUS is constrained, seems solid.
The hope for SCOTUS is Roberts’ concern for his legacy. Plus rumor is that Gorsuch is a egotistical putz, and tries to dominate the other justices to the point that even the conservatives on the court dislike him.
Yes I’ve read the same thing about Gorsuch. He has made himself very unpopular right off the bat.
Glad there is a good legal basis to lift the ban. They also have cases with solid emotional appeal. What kind of monster would not want to help these folks get to the US?