Language
Country/Area
No result found
Analysis from a legal perspective: Why did Executive Order 13769 trigger a nationwide legal challenge?
Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the focus of legal challenges across the country. The order aims to restrict travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. After Trump signed the executive order, dozens of legal challenges followed, arguing that the order violated the U.S. Constitution and federal regulations. Faced with this situation, why did Executive Order 13769 trigger such widespread legal repercussions?
The order is intended to suspend entry from these seven countries and restrict refugee admissions policies, specifically prioritizing refugees of specific religions.
After the issuance of Executive Order 13769, almost 50 cases were filed in federal courts across the country in just a few days from January 28 to 31. The courts responded quickly by granting interim relief, including multiple temporary restraining orders (TROs), blocking enforcement of major parts of the order. The primary temporary restraining order, issued by a federal court in Washington state, is in effect nationwide.
The temporary restraining order specifically prevents the executive branch from enforcing the provisions of the Executive Order that suspend entry from seven countries for 90 days.
The Trump administration appealed the temporary restraining order, which was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, allowing much of the provision to continue to apply. As time passed, Trump signed a new order, Executive Order 13780, in March 2017, which removed Iraq from the list and further relaxed some exemption conditions. However, the order was partially blocked again by a federal judge in Hawaii on March 15.
In June 2017, the Supreme Court partially allowed an appeals court to suspend an earlier injunction on the order, while setting the case for oral arguments in October. Parties involved in challenging the order include private individuals, some of whom were restricted entry or detained after the order was issued, and the attorneys general of Washington and Minnesota. Other groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), also challenged the order.
15 Democratic state attorneys general issued a joint statement calling the executive order "unconstitutional, inconsistent with American values and illegal."
In September 2017, the Trump administration once again replaced Executive Order 13780 through Presidential Proclamation 9645, intending to impose travel restrictions on these countries more permanently, and added North Korea and Venezuela to the list. These legal challenges arise from a variety of legal bases and cover multiple levels of constitutional and statutory issues.
The legal basis for the main challenges in Executive Order 13369 include the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The latter requires that the actions of government agencies must be reasonable and not arbitrary or arbitrary. In his executive order, Trump relied on a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act established in 1952, which gave the president broad authority, but the non-discrimination clause in the 1965 act was another important legal basis for the challenge.
Legal experts have pointed out that Trump's order may violate the non-discrimination provisions of the 1965 statute and believe that the legal challenge may be persuasive.
Legal groups challenging the order alleged that the order violated the Constitution, including the procedural justice and equal protection clauses. They argue that governments should not deprive individuals of their freedoms, especially those of a particular nationality. Additionally, challengers point to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits government bias against particular religions.
In short, the legal challenges triggered by the issuance of "Executive Order 13769" not only reflect widespread concerns about immigration policy, but also involve questions about the basic rule of law and constitutional rights in the United States. Ultimately, these challenges have left the courts facing a fundamental question: How should governments strike a balance between national security and individual freedoms?
Faced with such complex legal challenges and constitutional issues, we cannot help but ask: How can the government protect individual freedoms while maintaining national security when exercising its power? Is this a question worth pondering?
