Executive Order 13769: Difference between revisions

Executive Order 13769

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States
U.S. President Donald Trump signing the order at the Pentagon, with Vice President Mike Pence (left) and Secretary of Defense James Mattis (right) at his side.
Executive Order 13769 in the Federal Register
Type	Executive order
Executive Order number	13769
Signed by	Donald Trump on January 27, 2017 (2017 -01-27)
Federal Register details
Federal Register document number	2017-2281
Publication date	1 February 2017
Document citation	82 FR 8977
Summary
Suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days * Restricts admission of citizens from seven countries for 90 days * Orders list of countries for entry restrictions after 90 days Suspends admission of Syrian refugees indefinitely Prioritizes refugee claims by individuals from minority religions on the basis of religious-based persecution Expedites a biometric tracking system Other provisions * Not fully in force as of February 9, 2017[update]

Executive Order 13769, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, is an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, that places limits on travel to the U.S. from certain countries, and by all refugees, out of concern for terrorists infiltrating the U.S.^[1] The order was challenged by widespread protests and numerous lawsuits, including State of Washington v. Trump, which resulted in a temporary restraining order (TRO) on February 3 that blocked much of the executive order pending further litigation. The dispute centers on the constitutionality and legality of the order including a fundamental question of whether this area of Presidential authority should be subject to review by the courts.

The order placed a limit on the number of refugees to be admitted into the United States in 2017 to 50,000 and suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days, after which the program would be conditionally resumed for individual countries while prioritizing refugee claims from persecuted minority religions. The order also indefinitely suspended the entry of Syrian refugees. The order directs some Cabinet secretaries to suspend entry of nationals from countries who do not meet adjudication standards under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Homeland Security lists these countries as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The order was labeled a "Muslim ban" by the popular press and critics although only persons from those seven countries are prohibited from entry into the United States.

The order allows exceptions to the entry ban on a case-by-case basis. The Department of Homeland Security later exempted U.S. lawful permanent residents (green-card holders) and dual nationals of other countries who also held a passport or nationality of one of the listed countries provided they used a passport of a non-listed country on entry into the U.S.

More than 100 travelers were detained, being held for hours without access to family or legal assistance, and up to 60,000 visas were "provisionally revoked". Within hours nearly 50 lawsuits were filed arguing that the order, or actions taken pursuant to the order, violated the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and treaty obligations. Federal courts issued emergency orders halting detention, expulsion, or blocking of lawful travelers pending final rulings. Following the February 3 temporary restraining order from State of Washington v. Trump the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stopped enforcing portions of the executive order affected by the restraining order and the State Department revalidated visas that had been previously revoked. The restraining order was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 9.

Domestically the order was criticized by Democratic and Republican members of Congress, universities, business leaders, Catholic bishops, and Jewish organizations. 1,000 U.S. diplomats signed a dissent cable opposing the order. Public opinion was divided with initial national polls yielding inconsistent results. Protests against the order erupted in airports and cities. Internationally the order prompted broad condemnation including from longstanding U.S. allies. The travel ban and suspension of refugee admissions was criticized by top United Nations officials and by a group of 40 Nobel laureates and thousands of other academics.

Between 2015 and 2016 the seven countries listed in the executive order were placed on the list of "countries of concern" by the Obama administration.^[2][3] The executive order refers to these countries as "countries designated pursuant to Division O, Title II, Section 203 of the 2016 consolidated Appropriations Act."^[4] Prior to this, in 2011, additional background checks were imposed on the nationals of Iraq.^[5]

Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer cited these existing restrictions as evidence that the executive order was based on outstanding policies saying that the seven targeted countries were "put[...]first and foremost" by the Obama administration.^[2] Fact-checkers at Politifact, New York Times, and Washington Post said the Obama restrictions cannot be compared to this Executive Order because they were in response to a credible threat, were not a blanket ban on all individuals from those countries, and concluded that the Trump administration's statements about the Obama administration were misleading and false.^[4][6][7]

Donald Trump became the U.S. president on January 20, 2017. He has long said, consistent with evidence that had already been widely reported,^[9][10] that terrorists are using the U.S. refugee resettlement program to enter the country.^[11] As a candidate Trump's "Contract with the American Voter" pledged to suspend immigration from "terror-prone regions".^[12][13] Trump-administration officials then described the executive order as fulfilling this campaign promise.^[14]

During his initial election campaign Trump had proposed a temporary, conditional, and "total and complete" ban on Muslims entering the United States.^{[11][15][16][17]} His proposal was met by opposition by U.S. politicians including Mike Pence and James Mattis.^[15][18]

On June 12, in reference to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting that occurred on the same date, Trump used Twitter to renew his call for a Muslim immigration ban.^[19][20]. On June 13 Trump proposed to suspend immigration from "areas of the world" with a history of terrorism, a change from his previous proposal to suspend Muslim immigration to the U.S; the campaign did not announce the details of the plan at the time, but Jeff Sessions, an advisor to Trump campaign on immigration,^[21] said the proposal was a statement of purpose to be supplied with details in subsequent months.^[22] In a speech on August 31, 2016, Trump vowed to "suspend the issuance of visas" to "places like Syria and Libya."^[23][24]

President Trump told the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) that Christian refugees would be given priority in terms of refugee status in the United States^[26] after saying that Syrian Christians were "horribly treated" by his predecessor, Barack Obama.^[27][28] Christians make up very small fractions (0.1% to 1.5%) of the Syrian refugees who have registered with the UN High Commission for Refugees in Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and the Lebanon; those registered represent the pool from which the U.S. selects refugees.^[29]

António Guterres, then-UN High Commissioner for Refugees, said in October 2015 that many Syrian Christians have ties to the Christian community in Lebanon and have sought the UN's services in smaller numbers.^[29] During 2016 the U.S. had admitted almost as many Christian as Muslim refugees.^[28] Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) accused Trump of spreading "false facts" and "alternative facts".^[30]

A 2015 report published by the Migration Policy Institute found that 784,000 refugees had resettled in the United States since September 11, 2001, with only 3 arrested for suspected terrorism.^[31]

In January 2016 the Department of Justice (DOJ), on request of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, provided a list of 580 public international terrorism and terrorism-related convictions from September 11, 2001 through the end of 2014.^[32] Based on this data and news reports and other open-source information the committee determined that at least 380 among the 580 convicted were foreign-born.^[33] Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute said the list of 580 convictions shared by DOJ was problematic in that "241 of the 580 convictions (42 percent) were not even for terrorism offences"; they started with a terrorism tip but ended up with a non-terrorism charge like "receiving stolen cereal."^{[34][35][36][37]}

The New York Times said that candidate Trump in a speech on June 13, 2016, was reading from statutory language to justify the President's authority to suspend immigration from areas of the world with a history of terrorism.^[22] The Washington Post identified the referenced statute as 8 U.S.C. 1182(f).^[38] This was the statutory subsection eventually cited in sections 3, 5, and 6 of the executive order.^[39]

According to CNN the executive order was developed primarily by White House officials (which the Los Angeles Times reported as including "major architect" Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon^[40]) without input from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that is typically a part of the drafting process. This was disputed by White House officials.^[41] The OLC usually reviews all executive orders with respect to form and legality before issuance. The White House under previous administrations, including the Obama administration, has bypassed or overruled the OLC on sensitive matters of national security.^[42]

Trump aides said that the order had been issued in consultation with Department of Homeland Security and State Department officials. Officials at the State Department and other agencies said it was not.^[43][44] An official from the Trump administration said that parts of the order had been developed in the transition period between Trump's election and his inauguration.^[45] CNN reported that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Department of Homeland Security leadership saw the details shortly before the order was finalized.^[46]

On January 31 John Kelly told reporters that he "did know it was under development" and had seen at least two drafts of the order.^[47] James Mattis, for the Department of Defense, did not see a final version of the order until the morning of the day President Trump signed it (the signing occurred shortly after Mattis' swearing-in ceremony for Secretary of Defense in the afternoon^[48][49]) and the White House did not offer Mattis the chance to provide input while the order was drafted.^[50] Rex Tillerson, though not yet confirmed as Secretary of State, was involved in cabinet-level discussions about implementation of the order at least as early as 2:00 a.m. Sunday, January 29.^[51]

Rudy Giuliani said on Fox News that President Trump came to him for guidance over the order.^[52] He said that Trump called him about a "Muslim ban" and asked him to form a committee to show him "the right way to do it legally".^[53][54] The committee, which included former U.S. Attorney General and Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York Michael Mukasey and Reps. Mike McCaul and Peter T. King, decided to drop the religious basis and instead focus on regions where, as Giuliani put it, there is "substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists" to the United States.^[54] Nongovernment research does indicate foreign nationals from the effected countries in the travel ban have been arrested and implicated in terrorist plots since 9/11.^[55]

The version of the executive order posted at the White House website differs from the Presidentially approved order published by the Federal Register.^[56]

Section 1, describing the purpose of the order, invoked the September 11 attacks, stating that then State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of the attackers.^[1][57][58] However, none of the September 11 hijackers were from any of the seven banned countries.^[57][59] When announcing his executive action, Trump made similar references to the attacks several times.^[59]

The seven countries targeted by the executive order exclude Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Muslim-majority countries where The Trump Organization has conducted business or pursued business opportunities.^[60][61] Legal scholar David G. Post, in an opinion column in The Washington Post, initially suggested that Trump had "allowed business interests to interfere with his public policy making" and called for Trump's impeachment. However, he later modified that call to instead ask for Trump's financial information.^[62]

Section 3 of the order blocks entry of aliens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, for at least 90 days, regardless of whether or not they hold valid non-diplomatic visas.^[63][64][65] This order affects about 218 million people who are citizens of these countries.^[66] After 90 days a list of additional countries—not just those listed in^[a] of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)—must be prepared.^[67][1] The cited section of the INA refers to aliens who have been present in or are nationals of Iraq, Syria, and other countries designated by the Secretary of State.^[68] Citing Section 3(c) of the Executive Order, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Edward J. Ramotowski issued a notice that "provisionally revoke[s] all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals" of the designated countries.^[69][70][71]

The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, must conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA. Within 30 days the Secretary of Homeland Security must list countries that do not provide adequate information.^[1] The foreign governments then have 60 days to provide the information on their nationals after which the Secretary of Homeland Security must submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals from countries that do not provide the information.^[1]

Section 5 suspends the U. S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for at least 120 days but stipulates that the program can be resumed for citizens of the specified countries if the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence agree to do so.^[63][1] The suspension for Syrian refugees is indefinite.^[63][1][72] The number of new refugees allowed in 2017 is capped to 50,000 (reduced from 110,000).^[73] After the resumption of USRAP refugee applications will be prioritized based on religion-based persecutions only in the case that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in that country.^[74][75][76]

The order said that the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.^{[64][1][77][78]} Section 7 calls for an expedited completion and implementation of a biometric entry/exit tracking system for all travelers coming into the United States, without reference to whether they are foreigners or not.^[1] Section 7 orders DHS to follow the recommendation of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission, to create and implement the biometric entry/exit system.^[1](See The 9/11 Commission Report at page 389.)

Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, has stated to Congress that DHS is considering a requirement that refugees and visa applicants reveal social media passwords as part of security screening. The idea was one of many to strengthen border security, as well as requesting financial records.^[79] In 2011 the Obama administration released a memo revealing a similar plan to vet social media accounts for visa applicants.^[80] John Kelly has stated that the temporary ban is important and that the DHS is developing what "extreme vetting" might look like.^[81]

There was some confusion about the status of green-card holders (i.e., lawful permanent residents). According to the lawsuit filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota dated February 3, the government had changed its position five times so far.^[82] Initially, on the evening of Friday January 27, the Department of Homeland Security sent out a guidance to airlines stated "lawful permanent residents are not included and may continue to travel to the USA." CNN reported that it was overruled by the White House overnight.^[83] Early Saturday, January 28 the Department of Homeland Security's Acting Press Secretary Gillian Christensen said in an e-mail to Reuters that the order barred green-card holders from the affected countries.^[84] By Saturday afternoon White House officials said they would need a case-by-case waiver to return.^[85] On January 29 White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said that green card holders would not be prevented from returning to the United States.^[86]

According to the Associated Press no green card holders were ultimately denied entry to the U.S. although several initially spent "long hours" in detention.^[86][87] On January 29 the Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly deemed entry of lawful permanent residents into the U.S. to be "in the national interest" exempting them from the ban according to the provisions of the executive order.^[86][88] On February 1 White House Counsel Don McGahn issued a memorandum to the heads of the departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security clarifying that the ban-provisions of the executive order do not apply to lawful permanent residents.^[89] Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that green-card holders from affected countries "no longer need a waiver because, if they are a legal permanent resident, they won't need it anymore".^[90]

There was similar confusion about whether the order affected dual citizens of a banned country and a non-banned country. The State Department said that the order did not affect U.S. citizens who also hold citizenship of one of the seven banned countries. On January 28 the State Department stated that other travelers with dual nationality of one of these countries—for example, an Iranian who also holds a Canadian passport—would not be permitted to enter. However, the International Air Transport Association told their airlines that dual nationals who hold a passport from a non-banned country would be allowed in.^[91]

The United Kingdom's Foreign and Commonwealth Office issued a press release that the restrictions apply to those traveling from the listed countries not those that merely have their citizenship.^[92] The confusion led companies and institutions to take a more cautious approach; for example, Google told its dual-national employees to stay in the United States until more clarity could be provided.^[91] On January 31 the State Department updated the restrictions to allow persons holding dual citizenship to enter the US provided they possessed a US visa and entered using a passport from an unrestricted country.^[93]

A leaked prior draft of the order (published by The Washington Post before the order went into effect) would have ordered that "the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense, is directed within 90 days of the date of this order to produce a plan to provide safe areas in Syria and in the surrounding region in which Syrian nationals displaced from their homeland can await firm settlement, such as repatriation or potential third-country resettlement."^[94][95] This provision was omitted from the final order.^[1] Rex Tillerson, Trump's Secretary of State, had not yet taken office at the time the executive order went into effect.^[96]

During and after his campaign Trump proposed establishing safe zones in Syria as an alternative to Syrian refugees' immigration to the U.S. In the past "safe zones" have been interpreted as establishing, among other things, no-fly zones over Syria. During the Obama administration Turkey encouraged the U.S. to establish safe zones; the Obama administration was concerned about the potential for pulling the U.S. into a war with Russia.^[97]

In the first weeks of Trump’s presidency Turkey renewed its call for safe zones and proposed a new plan for them, the Trump administration has spoken with several other Sunni Arab States regarding safe zones, and Russia has asked for clarification regarding any Trump administration plan regarding safe zones. The UN High Commissioner on Refugees and Bashar Assad have dismissed safe zones as unworkable.

Shortly after the enactment of the executive order, at 4:42 pm on January 27, border officials across the country began enforcing the new rules. The New York Times reported people with various backgrounds and statuses being denied entry or sent back; this included refugees and minority Christians from the affected countries as well as students and green-card holders returning to the United States after visits abroad.^[85][98]

People from the countries mentioned in the order with valid visas were turned away from flights to the U.S.^[99] Some were stranded in a foreign country while in transit.^[100] Several people already on planes flying to the U.S. at the time the order was signed were detained on arrival.^[99] On January 28 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) estimated that there were 100 to 200 people being detained in U.S. airports,^[101] and hundreds were barred from boarding U.S.-bound flights.^[102] About 60 legal permanent residents were reported as detained at Dulles International Airport near Washington, D.C.^[103] Travelers were also detained at O'Hare International Airport without access to their cellphones and unable to access legal assistance.^[104] The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said on January 28 that the order was applied to "less than one percent" of the 325,000 air travelers who arrived in the United States.^[105] By January 29 DHS estimated that 375 travelers had been affected with 109 travelers in transit and another 173 prevented from boarding flights.^[106] In some airports there were reports that Border Patrol agents were requesting access to travelers' social media accounts.^[107]

On February 3 attorneys for the DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation advised a judge hearing one of the legal challenges to the order that more than 100,000 visas have been revoked as a consequence of the order. They also advised the judge that no legal permanent residents have been denied entry.^[108] The State Department later revised this figure downward to fewer than 60,000 revoked visas and clarified that the larger DOJ figure incorrectly included visas that were exempted from the travel ban (such as diplomatic visas) and expired visas.^[109][110]

On January 30 Trump said on Twitter "Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning."^[111] On January 31 The New York Times initially compared this "109 people" to the figure of 721 people that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported as the total number of people detained or denied boarding after the ban's enforcement; The news outlet later issued a correction to note this. CBP also reported 1,060 waivers for green-card holders had been processed; 75 waivers had been granted for persons with immigrant and nonimmigrant visas; and 872 waivers for refugees had been granted.^[112]

The Washington Post fact-checker compared the 109 number quoted by Trump to the 90,000 U.S. visas issued in the seven affected countries in fiscal year 2015.^[113] It later edited the story and faulted the White House for using the overall daily number of travelers as a comparison.^[111] The New York Times said 86,000 visitors, students and workers, in addition to 52,365, passed the requirements for green cards.^[114]

Google called its traveling employees back to the U.S. in case the order prevents them from returning. About 100 of the company's employees were thought to be affected by the order. Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote in a letter to his staff that "it's painful to see the personal cost of this executive order on our colleagues. We've always made our view on immigration issues known publicly and will continue to do so."^[115][116] Amazon.com Inc., citing disruption in travel for its employees, and Expedia Inc., citing impact to its customers and refund costs, filed declarations in support of the states of Washington and Minnesota in their case against the executive order, State of Washington v. Trump.^[117][118]

However, Committee for Economic Development CEO Steve Odland^[119] and several other executives and analysts commented that the order will not lead to significant changes in IT hiring practices among US companies, since the countries affected are not the primary source of foreign talent.^{[120][further explanation needed]} According to the Hill "a cross-section of legal experts and travel advocates" say that the order "could have a chilling effect on U.S. tourism, global business and enrollment in American universities".^{[121][122][123]}

According to Trita Parsi, the president of the National Iranian American Council, the order distressed citizens of the affected countries including those holding valid green cards and valid visas. Those outside the U.S. fear that they will not be allowed in, while those already in the country fear that they will not be able to leave, even temporarily, because they would not be able to return.^[124]

Some sources have stated that the executive order, if upheld, is likely to contribute to a doctor shortage in the United States, disproportionately affecting rural areas and underprovided specialties.^[125] According to an analysis by a Harvard Medical School group of professors, research analysts and physicians, the executive order is likely to reduce the number of physicians in the United States as approximately 5% of the foreign-trained physicians in the United States were trained in the seven countries targeted by the executive order.^[126] These doctors are disproportionately likely to practice medicine in rural, underserved regions and specialties facing a large shortage of practitioners.^[126] According to The Medicus Firm, which recruits doctors for hard-to-fill jobs, Trump's executive order covers more than 15,000 physicians in the United States.^[125]

Democrats "were nearly united in their condemnation" of the policy^[127] with opposition from Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY),^[128] Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT)^[129] and Kamala Harris (D-CA),^[130] former U.S. Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright^[128] and Hillary Clinton,^[131] and former President Barack Obama.^[132] Some Republicans praised the order with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan saying that Trump was "right to make sure we are doing everything possible to know exactly who is entering our country" while noting that he supported the refugee resettlement program.^[133] However, some top Republicans in Congress criticized the order.^[127] A statement from Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham cited the confusion that the order caused and the fact that the "order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security".^[134] Senator Susan Collins also objected to the ban.^[135] Some 1,000 career U.S. diplomats signed a "dissent cable" (memorandum) outlining their disagreement with the order, sending it through the State Department's Dissent Channel,^{[136][137][138]} possibly the largest number of signees ever.^[139] Over 40 Nobel laureates, among many academics, also opposed the order.^[140] Polls of the American public's opinion of the order are mixed with some polls showing majority opposition while others show majority support. Public responses often depended on the wording of polling questions.^[141][142]

The order prompted broad condemnation from the international community including longstanding U.S. allies^{[143][144][145]} and the United Nations.^[146][147] Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that Canada would continue to welcome refugees regardless of their faith.^[148] British Prime Minister Theresa May was initially reluctant to condemn the policy, having just met with Trump the day prior, saying that "the United States is responsible for the United States policy on refugees",^{[149][150][151]} but said she "did not agree" with the approach.^[152] France and Germany condemned the order.^[143][153] Some media outlets said Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull avoided public comment on the order with Turnbull saying it "is not my job" to criticize it.^[154] However, Australian opinion soured after a tweet by Trump appeared to question a refugee deal already agreed by Turnbull and Obama.^[155] Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs characterized Trump's order as insulting to the Islamic world and counter-productive in the attempt to combat extremism.^[156][157] The commander of the Iraqi Air Force said he is "worried and surprised", as the ban may affect Iraqi security forces members (such as Iraqi pilots being trained in US) who are on the front-lines of fighting ISIL terrorism. But traditional US allies in the region were largely silent.^[158] On February 1 the United Arab Emirates became the first Muslim-majority nation to back the order.^[159][160]

Some Catholic leaders have condemned the ban and encouraged mercy and compassion towards refugees.^{[161][162][163]} The executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Amanda Tyler, stated that the executive order was "a back-door bar on Muslim refugees."^[164] The director of the Alliance of Baptists, Paula Clayton Dempsey, urged support for U.S. resettlement of refugees.^[164] Members of the Southern Baptist Convention were largely supportive of the executive order.^[164] The Economist noted that the order was signed on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.^[27] This, as well as Trump's omission of any reference to Jews or anti-Semitism in his concurrent address for Holocaust Remembrance Day^[165] and the ban's possible effect on Muslim refugees, led to condemnation from Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, the HIAS, and J Street,^[166] as well as Holocaust survivors.^[167]

Some "alt-right" groups including white nationalists and the Ku Klux Klan praised the executive order.^[168][169] Some European far-right groups and politicians, such as French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, also applauded the executive order.^{[170][171][172]}

Jihadist and Islamic terrorist groups celebrated the executive order as a victory saying that "the new policy validates their claim that the United States is at war with Islam."^[173] ISIS-linked social media postings "compared the executive order to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which Islamic militant leaders at the time hailed as a 'blessed invasion' that ignited anti-Western fervor across the Islamic world."^[173]

From January 28 thousands of protesters gathered at airports and other locations throughout the United States to protest the signing of the order and detention of the foreign nationals. Members of the United States Congress, including U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and U.S. Representative John Lewis (D-GA) joined protests in their own home states.^[174] Google co-founder Sergey Brin (who emigrated to the United States with his family from the Soviet Union at the age of five)^[175] and Y Combinator president Sam Altman joined the protest at San Francisco airport.^[176][177] Virginia governor, Terry McAuliffe, joined the protest at Dulles International Airport on Saturday.^[178]

Legal challenges to the order were brought almost immediately after its issuance. From January 28 to January 31 almost 50 cases were filed in federal courts. The courts, in turn, granted temporary relief, including a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) that bars the enforcement of major parts of the executive order. The TRO specifically blocks the executive branch from enforcing provisions of the executive order that (1) suspend entry into the U.S. for people from seven countries for 90 days and (2) place limitations on the acceptance of refugees, including "any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities."^[179] The TRO also allows "people from the seven countries who had been authorized to travel, along with vetted refugees from all nations, to enter the country." The Trump administration is appealing the TRO.^[179]

The plaintiffs challenging the order argue that it contravenes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. The parties challenging the executive order include both private individuals (some of whom were blocked from entering the U.S. or detained following the executive order's issuance) and the states of Washington and Minnesota, represented by their state attorneys general. Other organizations such as the ACLU also challenged the order in court. Additionally, fifteen Democratic state attorneys general released a joint statement calling the executive order "unconstitutional, un-American and unlawful", and that "[w]e'll work together to fight it".^[180][181]

In response to the lawsuits the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement on January 29 that it would continue to enforce the executive order and that "prohibited travel will remain prohibited". On the same day a White House spokesperson said that the rulings did not undercut the executive order. On January 30 Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama administration holdover pending the confirmation of Trump's nominee barred the Justice Department from defending the executive order in court; She said she felt the order's effects were not in keeping "with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right".^[182] After Yates spoke against Trump's refugee ban Trump quickly relieved her of her duties calling her statement a "betrayal" to the Department of Justice. He replaced her with Dana J. Boente the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. This leadership alteration was referred to, by some, as "the Monday Night Massacre".^{[183][184][185][186]}

The state of Washington filed a legal challenge, State of Washington v. Trump, against the executive order;^[117][187] Minnesota later joined the case.^[188]

On February 3 District Judge James Robart of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a ruling temporarily blocking major portions of the executive order; he said that the plaintiffs had "demonstrate[d] immediate and irreparable injury", and were likely to succeed in their challenge to the federal defendants. Robart explicitly wrote his judgement to apply nationwide. In response to Robart's ruling the Department of Homeland Security said on February 4 that it had stopped enforcing the executive order, while the State Department reinstated visas that had been previously suspended.^[189] That same day the Justice Department asked for an emergency stay to reverse Judge Robart's ruling temporarily blocking the executive order nationwide. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Trump's immediate petition to stay the temporary restraining order from the Federal District Court in Washington State.^[190]

On February 9, two days after hearing argument, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously denied the request for a stay of Judge Robart's temporary restraining order.^{[191][192][193]}

On February 13 Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia ordered a preliminary injunction against the federal defendants in Aziz v. Trump because the executive order was likely discriminatory against Muslims. Her ruling was the first among cases challenging the executive order to find that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on grounds that the executive order violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.^{[194][195][196]}

Template:Wikinews2

• Full text of the executive order via the Federal Register
• Fact Sheet by the United States Department of Homeland Security
• Questions and Answers about the Executive Order. U.S. Customs and Border Protection
• Office of Legal Counsel memorandum on the order's legality obtained due to a FOIA request via the New York Times
• Court Challenges:

• Relevant court filings and orders
• Site Created for the Appeal of State of Washington et al. v. Trump in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals