Sessions urged state and city officials to “consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws, and to rethink these policies.”
It is unlikely that the Trump administration will petition the Supreme Court to review this particular decision, which concerned only the first policy, Executive Order 13769.
An explanation from five good federal judges.
Two federal judges, both nominated by President Barack Obama, have issued injunctions against President Donald Trump’s revised executive order temporarily restricting travel from six terrorist safe havens in the Middle East and Africa.
The purpose is not to discriminate against Islam, but to recognize the unique situation of non-Muslims in the Middle East.
A second federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s new executive order (EO) on immigration travel, while the federal judge who blocked the first EO is reserving judgment on the revised EO.
Trump’s revised executive order is both legal and reasonable.
If any federal court refuses to dismiss a lawsuit based on the old executive order, then that may be the first issue on this controversy to reach the Supreme Court.
President Donald Trump’s revised executive order restricting travel from terrorist safe havens is just as constitutional and legal as his original order.
A county judge in Florida has ruled unconstitutional on Tenth Amendment grounds another of President Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration, this one concerning federal funding for sanctuary cities.