Archive for the 'Immigration' Category

It’s Official: Texas Voter ID Law Violates the Voting Rights Act

On Monday April 17th,  a Federal Judge ruled that the voter ID laws enacted in Texas were enacted with not only the intent to discriminate against minorities but with the purpose of discriminating against those minorities.  This is a huge ruling with implications for both the law, S.B. 14, and the state of Texas as a whole.  This ruling has the potential to leave any law related to voting coming out of Texas subject to federal approval in the future.

However, this ruling is far from out of the blue.  The story of S.B 14 has been a back and forth saga through the courts since 2011.  Let’s take a look at the history of this bill, this most recent ruling, and what that ruling means.

Texas Voter IDThe History of S.B. 14

S.B. 14 is a law which substantially limits the acceptable types of voter IDs in Texas, often in particularly odd ways.  For instance, a hunting license is acceptable ID to vote but a student ID would not.  This is just the tip of the iceberg to what represented an enormous amount of limitations on what was acceptable identification to allow somebody to vote.  While there were suggestions to make funds available to educate the public on the details of the new restrictions and assist poorer voters to obtain sufficient identification, these suggestions were shot down at every turn and nothing of the sort made it into the final law.

When this law was initially passed in Texas in 2011, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) gave the Attorney General (AG) the power to review and shut down voting laws coming out states which had historically had discriminatory voting practices–think Jim Crow and the South.  With the effect the limitations would have and the lack of education on these effects in mind, the Attorney General at the time-Eric Holder-exercised this power and shut down the law.  While challenged this in the courts, AG Holder’s decision was upheld.

However, in 2013, a Supreme court ruling known as Shelby substantially limited the powers of the VRA.  Section 5 of the VRA allowed the federal government to pre-clear any voting laws coming out of states that previously had issues, as discussed above.  In Shelby, the Supreme Court analyzed the constitutionality of the VRA and Section 5 in particular.  They ultimately determined that, while Section 5 itself was constitutional, Section 4 was not.  Section 4 was the part of the VRA that allowed enforcement of Section 5.  Without this section, the pre-clearance requirements of the VRA were rendered essentially toothless.  The reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision was that justifications for the VRA’s restrictions-the history of discriminatory voting practices-was not the same concern it was when the VRA was enacted in the 60s.  Whether this is true or not, the Supreme Court decided that the provisions of the VRA needed to be reviewed by Congress if they were to remain in effect.

In the wake of this decision, many states-Texas, Mississippi, North and South Carolina-passed voting laws which had previously been shut down as potentially discriminatory by the federal government.  Among these was S.B. 14.  However, the law was immediately challenged in court.  In 2014, the law was determined to have discriminatory intent and purpose and struck down.  It was then appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ruling in part, but asked the lower court to revisit the matter of discriminatory intent.

This brings us to ruling of last week.  However, as opposed to the initial ruling, there was one huge difference–AG Jeff Sessions.  Jeff Sessions has made it clear that the potential for discriminatory voting laws is not a priority under his watch, and told his attorneys at the Department of Justice to drop this case altogether.  Despite this, and a request from the DoJ plaintiffs to drop the case, Judge Ramos-the judge handling this case-looked to the facts already submitted in coming to a resounding yes on the discriminatory intent and purpose behind S.B. 14.

Discriminatory Intent and Discriminatory Purpose

Discriminatory intent is shown where racial discrimination is a-although not necessarily the only-motivation behind a governing body’s decision.  Discriminatory purpose goes a little further than intent, implying that the law was enacted because of the adverse effects on an identifiable group.  A law demonstrating discriminatory purpose or effect is unconstitutional. A discriminatory impact is not enough on its own for a law to be unconstitutional on its face, there needs to be at least a partial discriminatory motive.

Judge Ramos found such an intent and purpose behind S.B. 14.  In determining to this, she looked to a number of things.  She noted not only the disproportionate impact that the carefully chosen ID limitations had on minorities, she also pointed to racist remarks made by legislators during deliberations on the law, the bypassing of usual procedures in passing the law, and the outright refusal to include anything which would help the public understand the laws.  Additionally, any amendment proposed to make the provisions less harsh–easing registration procedures, reducing costs to purchase the IDs necessary to vote, expanding the acceptable types of identification-were all rejected with essentially no consideration.  In fact, the Texas Congress was specifically advised of the disproportionate impact that the law would have and advised on a number of ways to lessen this disproportionate impact on minorities-they rejected all of them.

The stated goal of the bill was to avoid voter fraud.  However, despite the Texas Legislature being shown evidence that in person voting happened in about two out of every twenty million cases in the last decade and provided evidence that mail-in voting was much more commonly vulnerable to fraud, the Legislature didn’t feel the need to include any provisions on mail-in voting and focused exclusively on in-person voting.

With all this in mind, Judge Ramos ruled that she could find no non-discriminatory purpose for how Texas had approached S.B. 14.

What Will This Ultimately Mean

Unfortunately, despite years of rulings saying this law was intended to prevent minority voters from being represented at the polls, there’s a good chance this law will win out in the end.  Jeff Sessions has, as Attorney General, told the attorneys of the DoJ to cease litigating the case completely.  While Judge Ramos followed through with the case, Texas will certainly appeal her decision.  This appeal will probably have no lawyers opposing Texas, unless an outside group steps in to handle the litigation.  If this is the case, the chances of beating this law drop precipitously.  However, should somebody step in to help fight the law this is a case that has a good chance to make its way to the Supreme Court.  As it stands, even with the addition of Justice Gorsuch, the makeup of the court makes it likely that this law would be struck down and Texas would continue to require preclearance from the federal government for any new law effecting voters.

This hasn’t been a particularly good year for Texas when it comes to their voting process being ruled racially discriminatory.  Two separate courts have already ruled, this year alone, that Texas’ district maps are gerrymandered to “pack and dilute” minority votes.  The determination of Shelby limited the VRA on the premise that discriminatory voting practices were a thing of past generations.  However, this ruling and many other rulings this year have shown the opposite.  It is unlikely that congress, in its current state, will pass any legislation giving teeth back to the VRA.  However, as cases like this are appealed to the Supreme Court, they have the potential to create precedent for a future court ruling reevaluating Shelby.  However, it seems unlikely in the near the future.  Only time will tell how momentous this ruling may be, for now Judge Ramos’ ruling will serve to protect voting rights for minorities in Texas.

Proof of Residency is Not Required to Eat Out

Are you required to show identification before sitting down for lunch?  If you’re ordering alcohol, sure.  But what if you were asked to show proof of legal residency?  Brenda Carrillo and a friend sat down at the Saint Marc Pub-Café, an upscale eatery in Huntington Beach, when a waiter asked:

“Can I see your proof of residency?”

When the patrons repeated the question back to the waiter in disbelief, the waiter responded with:

“I need to make sure you’re from here before I serve you.”

Is this legal?  After complaints to the manager, the patrons were offered to be re-seated, but declined and left the restaurant.  Castillo commented that she had never felt so judged in her entire life.

Proof of ResidencyNo Shoes, No Service

You know those signs that read, “We reserve the right to refuse service” or “No shoes, no service”?  Can a restaurant really refuse service to whoever they want?  The short answer is no.  After Trump’s inauguration, it seems some feel emboldened to start showing their prejudices and, despite the waiters cruel and discriminatory intent, it doesn’t come as much of a surprise to hear these types of stories popping up across the country.

When is a restaurant justified to legally refuse service then?  For starters, a restaurant can never refuse service based on discrimination.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating based on race, color, religion or national origin.  Although a restaurant is considered private property, it’s still considered a place of public accommodation—equal protection laws still apply.

There aren’t necessarily a set of circumstances that would warrant a legal right to refuse service but, as a general rule of thumb, restaurants can refuse service if a guest puts the health, safety, or welfare of the establishment, or other guests, at risk.  That doesn’t help much, does it?  Certainly not an exhaustive list, but here are a few instances when a restaurant could legally refuse service:

  • When a guest is acting unreasonably rowdy or threatening other patrons,
  • When a guest doesn’t meet the company’s health requirements (think lacking adequate hygiene),
  • When a guest breaks lawful rules such as no-pet policies,
  • When the establishment has met capacity limits, or
  • When the establishment is getting ready to close.

Have you ever seen those signs that say ‘dress shirt and tie required’?  A restaurant can even refuse service if a guest doesn’t meet their clothing requirements., but refusing to serve a patron based on residency is not an acceptable reason because it’s a form of discrimination that the Civil Rights Act strictly prohibits.

I.D. Required Only in Limited Circumstances

The waiter had no right to ask the guests for identification.  When is proof of residency required?  One of the most obvious instances is obtaining a driver’s license or showing proof of citizenship to get a U.S. passport.  Many jobs require proof that you’re legally eligible to work in the U.S. and laws requiring a person suspected of a crime to show identification are legal as well.

The restaurant contacted Carillo with an apology after the story showed up on social media accounts.  The restaurant’s manager confirmed the behavior was not within company standards and the waiter was ultimately fired.  When the restaurant offered to host Carillo and her friends as “VIP guests,” Carillo and her friends declined the offer but, instead, asked Saint Marc Pub-Café to donate 10% of the weekend’s sales to an organization that advocates for immigrants living in the country illegally.

Did the patrons have another option?  They certainly could have brought a discrimination suit against the restaurant. Certain types of discrimination and civil rights violation allegations require a person file a claim or complaint with a federal or state agency before a lawsuit is brought, but Carillo likely would have had no problem getting the go-ahead to file a lawsuit.  At that point, it would have been up to Carillo to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” (that it’s more likely than not that the allegations are true) that the restaurant discriminated against her.

Trump: Can He Just Take the Land to Build His Wall?

If you say “The Wall” anywhere in the United States, whoever you’re talking about will almost certainly know what you’re referring to–the wall along the border of Mexico which was one of President Trump’s most frequent talking points during his campaign for the presidency.  The controversial topic of building a wall of dubious use and dubious necessity, estimated to cost in the tens of billions of dollars, has also been accompanied by equally controversial claims that the wall would be paid for by the Mexican government.  With statements out of Mexico fairly unequivocally stating that this will never be the case, the wall has moved forward but with U.S. taxpayers footing the bill.  In fact, even before President Trump was officially inaugurated, the Department of Homeland Security had already begun sending of Declarations of Taking seizing land along the border by eminent domain.

trumpThis isn’t the first situation where the government has sought land along the border–about a decade back the Bush administration seized quite a bit of border territory to build fencing under the Secure Fence Act of 2006.  The letters already sent to those along the border state that the Department of Homeland Security will be taking the land from property owners–with at least one letter offering $2,900 for approximately 1.2 acres of land.  Those receiving the letters have stated that they feel like they have no recourse in the face of these letters, either because they believe they have no rights or because they simply fear facing the awesome force of the Federal Government.

However, not all have felt this way.  As the letters continue to roll out, several property owners who would be effected have sought legal help and have ongoing cases against the government.  Understanding your rights in the face of eminent domain proceedings requires an understanding of the complex area of law which is government takings.  With in mind, let’s take look at when and how the government may seize private property, as well as the sorts of legal actions you can take in response to such a taking.

What is an Eminent Domain Proceeding?

Under the Fifth Amendment and the Takings Clause of the Constitution, the U.S. government has the power to take property from private citizens under the principles of eminent domain.  The government does this through a process known as condemnation–marking specific property for destruction, modification, or government use.  However, the government does not have the power to go around taking property randomly–although the power of the Takings Clause is broad. For the government to take private property, they must show that they are taking the land for public use and must provide the owner with just compensation for the taking.

There are two types of government takings. The first form is simple: any time the government physically occupies any portion of privately owned land that is a taking. This includes both temporary and permanent occupation of property.

The second form of taking is a bit more complex-regulatory takings.  This is where the government passes a law–usually a law regulating the use of land–which removes all (and I do mean all) viable economic uses for a piece of property.  But it gets a little more complex from there with the courts looking to whether a regulation interferes with investor-backed expectations for use of the property, what reasonable uses existed for the property, and whether a law has greater effect on some property owners than on others.

Once a government action is established as a taking, they must justify it as taken for the public use.  A government official can’t take private property for their own private use, the taking must benefit the public and someway.  However, benefit the public in some way is essentially where the analysis ends.  From court to court exactly what makes a taking for public use may vary to some degree.

So we have a taking and it’s for the purpose of public use, now the government has to provide just compensation. Where the full property is taken the government must generally pay the fair market value of the property as if the owner were to sell their property to a purchaser at the time the condemnation was issued.  The same is true is a regulation removes all economically viable use from the land.  Where the government only takes part of a property, there a couple of approaches the courts will take.  It is most common however to look at the difference in the value of the property before and after the condemnation occurs and simply require the government to pay the difference.

What are Kind of Legal Actions Come Up When the Government Seizes Land?

So we’ve seen the way eminent domain seizures work, now what are your rights in the face of a condemnation action?  The first thing you’re almost certainly asking is the same thing those along the Texas border have been asking in the media–can I stop the government from taking my property?  Unfortunately, this is a particularly challenging thing to do if the government can establish a public use for the property it is taking.  You are basically required to prove that your losses from the taking would be greater than the overall benefit to society created by the public use for which the land is being taken.  This is not only extremely hard and complicated to establish, it is also rarely the case.  Thus, while you can and should seek your day in court on the issue if you believe you are being treated unfairly, the government will usually get its way once it begins a condemnation proceeding.  However, where you do succeed the courts can grant an injunction preventing the government from taking your property.

The more common ways of challenging a condemnation proceeding strike at the basic requirements on the government to show that any given taking is constitutional–public use and just compensation.  A case attacking public use would essentially argue that the government has no good reason which benefits society behind their taking.  However, given the direction case law has gone in regards to what constitutes a public use, this is a hard point to succeed on barring clear abuse of the takings clause.  For example, despite the controversial nature of the wall Trump intends to build, it is very unlikely that any of the property owners along the border could challenge a taking on grounds that the wall has no public use–even if they personally opposed the idea of building a wall or wanted to bring evidence that the wall would not achieve its stated purpose.  The government can almost certainly establish that the wall has a reasonable public use of some sort–from security to immigration reform.

A few of the lawsuits from along the border of Texas deal with something very rarely seen in eminent domain proceedings–treaty rights.  A few property owners own property in the floodplains of the Rio Grande.  A treaty between the U.S. and Mexico forbids the building of any structures which could displace floodwaters into nearby communities.  One or two lawsuits have alleged that takings by the U.S. government to build a wall on this land would not satisfy public use requirements as they would violate this treaty.

Sometimes, the Best Answer is the Simple Answer

Perhaps the most common way to challenge a condemnation proceeding is to say that the government is not paying you enough–they haven’t provided you just compensation.  This is much easier to establish, simply show how much your property was worth and show that the government didn’t give you that much.  This is the path most of the lawsuits from property owners along the border have taken.  As you might imagine, many don’t consider $2.9K just compensation for over an acre of land.  The actual value of acreage in Texas varies substantially depending on where it is purchased.  However, in many places it can go for much more than the government has offered here.

While it is not particularly the case for those along the Texas border, there have been many situations where the government commits a taking but does not acknowledge that taking.  In this case, a property owner would need to bring a lawsuit against the government saying they have taken their property–a process known as an inverse condemnation proceeding.  This requires the person bringing the party bringing the lawsuit to establish that a taking has in fact occurred, and they have not been justly compensated.

The property owners along the Texas border, their property being condemned and purchased on the taxpayers’ dime, certainly have rights in the courts.  They can and should challenge any taking that does not appropriately compensate them.  However, it is unlikely that these property owners will be keeping their land.  It is much more likely that the costs of taking this land from these private owners will simply be another expense on the many billion-dollar pile that Trump’s wall is posed to cost.

Immigration: Understanding the United States’ New Policies

Under the Obama administration, enforcing immigration policies meant focusing on dangerous criminals and keeping families together, not a hard-lined approach that would deport every undocumented immigrant.  Times have changed, though, and Trump’s executive orders, titled Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements and Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, changes the enforcement practices of our nations’ immigration laws.

Veiled Rule Really Includes All Undocumented Immigrants

immigrationAlthough Obama took a more progressive approach during his first term, deportations dropped during his second term and priority was given to dangerous criminals—not to those immigrants whose only violation was being in the country illegally.  In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created the Priority Enforcement Program, which focused on deporting undocumented immigrants that posed threats to public safety, national security, and border security.  This program within the DHS has now been terminated because under Trump’s executive order undocumented immigrants that:

  • have been convicted or charged of any criminal offense,
  • have committed a chargeable criminal offense,
  • have engaged in fraud (think visa fraud) or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency,
  • have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits,
  • are subject to final order of removal, but have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the U.S., or
  • in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security are to be given priority for deportation.

Let’s be clear here.  The policy includes virtually every person in the country that is here illegally.  Under this new policy, any unauthorized immigrant that has committed a chargeable criminal offense is to be deported.  Crossing the border illegally is in and of itself a criminal offense, so all those campaign promises that he only wanted to deport criminals wasn’t entirely true.  The only other way an immigrant could be here illegally is by overstaying a visa.

Department of Homeland Security Memos Shifts Policies Further

Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, John Kelly, released a set of implementation memos that give guidelines on how to enforce Trump’s policies under his executive orders.  According to the DHS, these memos are “designed to answer some frequently asked questions about how the Department will operationally implement the guidance provided by the president’s order”.

In short, the memos expedite deportation, tighten immigration laws for asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors entering the country, could send immigrants awaiting immigration proceedings in the United States back to Mexico, seek to publicize crimes by undocumented immigrants, build new detention facilities, strip immigrants of privacy protections, and enlist local police officers to enforce immigration policies.

Here’s a closer look at some of the changes.

  • Although the memos do list specifics about who is to be given priority for deportation in accordance with Trump’s executive order, the memos direct that the DHS will no longer exempt classes or categories of removable aliens. This is contrary to the policies under Obama, who worked to keep illegal immigrants with strong ties to their communities and this country, including those with citizen children, here in the United States.
  • Establishes the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office. This one allows the VOICE office to release information about the offender to victims and their families.  Further, it terminates any and all resources used to advocate on behalf of illegal aliens; all resources are reallocated to the VOICE office.
  • Directs establishment of regulations to collect civil fines and penalties from illegal aliens.
  • Strips Privacy Act protections from any person that is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
  • Expanded expedited removal processes for undocumented immigrants that haven’t been here long. Immigration law says undocumented adults captured within 2 years of entering the U.S. can be removed without a hearing.  In the past, DHS policy limited this policy to those captured within 14 days of entering the country, but, even though the memo doesn’t give a specific change of time frame, this will likely no longer be tolerated based on the essence of the memos.
  • Criminalizes those who help unaccompanied children. Any individual who “facilitates the illegal smuggling or trafficking of an alien child into the United States” is subject to deportation and/or prosecution.
  • For those that entered the country through a neighboring territory, the memos authorize their return to that territory where they will wait for the outcome of their removal proceedings. This is true even if that territory isn’t their country of origin.

Although some of the information contained in the memos references already existing laws, the message is clear—violating immigration laws will no longer be tolerated.  Under these policies, the government no long considers violating immigration laws a secondary offense and the memos direct Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hire 10,000 additional officers and agents to implement these new policy changes.

What our clients think

At LegalMatch, we value our client’s opinion and make it a point to address their concerns. You can refer to our reviews page if you want to know what our clients have to say about us.

Travel Ban 2.0: Trump’s Second Attempt to Ban Immigration

The initial executive order out of President Trump’s White House regarding limiting immigration to the U.S, widely known as the “Muslim Ban,” was an unmitigated disaster.  Rolled out overnight, the order caused chaos across the country as agencies tried to put the order’s new rule into force.  It also drew immediate legal challenges from numerous states, all challenging the order-in whole or in part-as unconstitutional.  Several of these legal challenges succeeded; most notably a challenge out of the state of Washington which culminated in a preliminary injunction–an order preventing the “Muslim Ban” from taking effect whatsoever until the Washington case is fully litigated.  In the face of court order saying that the order was most likely unconstitutional, and the fallout of the original implementation of the order, President Trump did something we perhaps should all have expected-he signed and put into force a nearly identical order.  On Monday, March 6th, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”

In the past we’ve already covered the effects of the ban, the constitutional problems intrinsic to the ban, the many lawsuits brought after the ban was passed, and the injunction which ultimately put an end to it.  So with that in mind, you’ve got to know that we’ve got some thoughts about Trump’s second iteration of the ban.  So without further ado, lets dive into it–the changes between this new order and the original order courts ruled to be likely unconstitutional, the chances that this order will stand, and the legal challenges the order already faces.

How is This Order Different From the One Courts Already Stopped?

travel banThe short answer, it isn’t very different.  The order still targets specific Muslim majority countries, barring immigration from those countries for 90 days. It also still cuts the number of refugees allowed to be admitted to the U.S. per year by more than half.  However, with this being said, there are some important changes in effect from the initial order–mostly designed to make the order appear more kosher to the courts.

The new version of the order has removed the indefinite ban on the U.S. taking in any refugees out of Syria.  Instead, the order includes a 120-day freeze on taking in those refugees.  However, the order also includes the ability to renew the ban for a longer period of time upon review.  It also doesn’t include any limits on the number of times the ban can be renewed, so in effect the ban could very well be indefinite.

The order also has removed Iraq from the original list of countries slapped with a 90-day immigration ban, leaving only the other 6 original countries.  The reason for this change is a request from the Defense Secretary, fearing that such a ban would injure the U.S.’ ongoing efforts to fight ISIS in Iraq.  The order doesn’t take a ban on immigration out of Iraq off the table though, threatening to put the country back on the list if Iraq’s  leaders don’t increase their amount of intelligence they share with the U.S.

The new crack at the ban also has eliminated language specifically offering preferential immigration status to “persecuted religious minorities.”  This was one of the most widely criticized elements of the order, both by the public and in legal challenges to the order.  The thought being that the provision was designed to favor other religious groups over Muslims.

As opposed to the frenetic same-day introduction of the last immigration ban, the Trump administration has allowed for a slower implementation and time to prepare for implementation.  The ban only goes into effect ten days after its signing–March 16.

The order has a number of other changes.  The order includes specific details about why the six countries hit with the 90-day ban were selected; presumably to strengthen the order against the many legal challenges saying the order was targeting countries based on their Muslim majority.  The order focuses its details sections on the statistics regarding terrorism for each country selected.  The order also no longer affects current visa holders or refugees already granted asylum.

So you’ve likely noticed that these changes are, intentionally, targeted at trying to make the order stand up to the scrutiny of the courts.  In order to determine whether it has succeeded, let’s look at why the last order got hit with an injunction.

Why Was the Last Order Blocked?

Since we’ve covered this issue in previous articles, we’ll keep the discussion of why the last order couldn’t pass constitutional muster on the short side.

A preliminary injunction is granted where the party seeking it can show that they are likely to succeed in their arguments, there would be irreparable harm if the thing they seek to stop isn’t stopped immediately, there isn’t a public interest against granting an injunction, and the party seeking the injunction will be more harmed by what they seek to stop than the party you’re bringing the injunction against will be harmed by the injunction itself.  In the case brought by Washington, the court ruled that they were likely to succeed in their arguments that the immigration ban unconstitutionally singled out targets based on religion or national origin–in other words the order discriminated likely discriminated against protected classes.

Will the New Order Stand Up in Court?

The White House certainly believes its changes, although extremely minor in practice, are enough to allow the order to pass muster.  In fact, the Department of Justice has already filed briefs saying that the revisions have rendered all the legal cases regarding the first order moot.  In other words, the injunction has no further effect and the new order must be challenged or not on its own merits.

However, as of March 9th, Washington state lawyers have taken the stance that the changes are so minor as to amount to essentially putting lipstick on a pig.  They argue that the prejudicial purpose behind the order remains and its most offensive portions are essentially untouched.  For this reason, they’ve asked the federal judge who placed the preliminary injunction on the original order to expand his order to cover the “Muslim Ban 2.0.”  A similar attempt to challenge the ban has been brought by Minnesota and Hawaii.  The Attorney Generals for Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon have all made it known that they intend to join in on the challenges brought by Hawaii, Minnesota and Washington.

So will the new and improved “Muslim Ban” stand up?  We’ll have to see how the courts rule.  However, the order has changed very little in actual effect.  It still targets specific nationalities in almost exactly the same manner and it still exclusively targets Muslim majority countries.  The same reasons it was likely unconstitutional before are all still there.  Even if the order itself has removed some of the language making obvious attempts to target Muslims and provided an alternate explanation, Trump’s own statements on immigration and the previous order still can be used as evidence of the discriminatory purpose to the new order.

Nothing in law is ever truly certain, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.  The new ban is very similar to the previous order, it seems unlikely that it will pass constitutional muster with such minimal changes.

What our clients think

At LegalMatch, we value our client’s opinion and make it a point to address their concerns. You can refer to our reviews page if you want to know what our clients have to say about us.