Trump v. Hawaii | The Insightful Immigration Blog

Tag Archive for: Trump v. Hawaii

Gomez v. Trump: Welcome to the Brave New World of Made Up Law Under INA 212(f)

September 8, 2020/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

Before President Trump, one could hardly imagine that an American president would use INA § 212(f) to rewrite immigration law in a manner he saw fit and with whatever prejudices might be harboring in his mind. While INA § 212(f) does give extraordinary power to a president, Trump has exploited these powers beyond what could have been imagined when Congress enacted this provision. INA §212(f) states:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

President Trump, in addition to various travel bans, sought to bar various immigrants and nonimmigrants from entering the US through Proclamations 10014 and 10052 under the pretext that they pose a threat to the US labor market during COVID-19. Several plaintiffs challenged the proclamations through by seeking a preliminary injunction, which resulted in Gomez v. Trump in the District Court of the District of Columbia. Judge Amit Mehta, who wrote the decision, upheld the validity of the proclamations under INA 212(f), but still ordered the State Department to process the visas of Diversity (DV) lottery winners before the Congressionally mandated deadline of September 30, 2020. The judge said that the government had “unreasonably delayed processing” of their visas. Others subject to the proclamation did not suffer the same irreparable harm as their visas could be processed even after September 30, but DV lottery winners needed to be issued by the hard deadline of September 30 deadline. Judge Mehta drew a distinction between processing of the visas of DV lottery winners, which were not affected by the proclamations, and their ultimate entry into the US, which would still be prohibited under them.

Trump’s proclamations will still bar immigrants and nonimmigrants from entering the US, including DV winners. The only saving grace is that DV lottery winners may some day hope to enter the US once the proclamations expire as their visas got processed before September 30. If Trump gets reelected, the ban may continue and DV winners, along with all the other immigrants and nonimmigrants, would likely still be barred from entering the US.

Apart from this narrow victory for DV winners, Judge Mehta’s decision was a disappointment. Judge Mehta confirmed that INA 212(f) exudes deference under Trump v. Hawaii. This was the decision of the Supreme Court that upheld what has come to be known as Trump’s Muslim ban since it fulfilled a campaign promise that he would ban Muslims if he became president. The watered down version of the proclamation that was upheld by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii banned nationals of Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Chad and Syria, along with Venezuela and North Korea. Although the Ninth Circuit in Doe v. Trump distinguished the president’s authority under 212(f) in domestic matters – as that involved a ban on immigrants who were unable to obtain specific health insurance – Judge Mehta gave short shrift to this distinction (see Trump is Not King, Cannot Rewrite Public Charge Law through Executive Fiat). Judge Mehta also did not discuss the other Ninth Circuit decision in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, where the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Trump administration had unlawfully done what the “Executive cannot do directly; amend the INA”. In that case Trump through INA 212(f) prohibited asylum seekers from applying for asylum who crossed outside a designated port of entry even though INA § 208(a)(1) categorically allows any alien who is physically present in the United States to apply for asylum regardless of the manner of entry and even though it was not through a designated port of arrival. According to Judge Mehta, the plain language of INA 212(f) simply speaks in terms of restricting entry of aliens “detrimental to the United States”; and this detriment is not limited to any sphere, foreign or domestic. Since COVID-19 has resulted in changed economic circumstances, a court is not well equipped to evaluate the policy choices of the administration to restrict the entry of certain classes of aliens, according to Judge Mehta. Even if President Trump based these restrictions on false pretenses, Judge Mehta held that the court’s role in evaluating even this is constrained under INA 212(f). “Congress possesses ample powers to right that wrong. The scope of judicial review is circumscribed,” according to Judge Mehta.

Judge Mehta also disagreed that the proclamations overrode the INA, and the exceptions and waivers in the proclamations still allowed noncitizens to enter the US. Judge Mehta, unfortunately, did not analyze that these exceptions, especially the State Department’s National Interest Exceptions, imposed additional requirements that had no basis in the INA (see Trump’s Work Visa Ban Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act And So Do the Exceptions). Take, for example, the requirement that: “The wage rate paid to the H-1B applicant meaningfully exceeds the prevailing wage rate by at least 15 percent (see Part F, Questions 10 and 11 of the LCA) by at least 15 percent. When an H-1B applicant will receive a wage that meaningfully exceeds the prevailing wage, it suggests that the employee fills an important business need where an American worker is not available.” This additional wage requirement is entirely absent from the INA. Another example is a provision in the guidance which states that “L-1A applicants seeking to establish a new office in the United States likely do NOT fall into this category, unless two of the three criteria are met AND the new office will employ, directly or indirectly, five or more U.S. workers.” The requirement that petitioners employ five or more U.S. workers also has no basis in the INA or in 8 Code of Federal Regulations. For L-1B applicants, the need to demonstrate significant and unique contributions to the petitioning company, that the specialized knowledge is specifically related to a critical infrastructure need and that the applicant has spent multiple years with the same company has no basis in the law or regulations. Under the existing INA and regulations, the L-1B applicant must demonstrate that he has had one year of qualifying experience in a managerial, executive or specialized knowledge capacity. Judge Mehta’s decision is devoid of any analysis on how these exceptions have no basis in the INA, and instead, he held that they did not “expressly override” any “particular” provision of the INA and “[a]liens still may travel to the United States under the visa categories established by Congress. “

Welcome to the new world of INA 212(f) jurisprudence under which law can be simply be made up without going through the arduous process of proposing bills in Congress and having them voted in both the chambers. Indeed, this law can be invented through the stroke of a xenophobe’s pen. Arch xenophobe Stephen Miller has been the architect of Trump’s proclamations under 212(f). Either entire countries can be banned or entire visa categories pursuant to 212(f). The exceptions to these restrictions, based on national interest, can also be made up with no bearing on the actual visa category and subject to a consular officer’s caprice and whim.

If President Trump is reelected, one should expect that he will continue to wholesale rewrite the INA and restrict immigration. If on the other hand Joe Biden is elected, the broad bans that Trump issued under 212(f) could be eliminated on January 21. In the meantime, even though Gomez v. Trump upheld Trump’s power to rewrite the law under 212(f), it remains to be seen how other courts will interpret 212(f) with respect to Proclamations 10014 and 10052. The hearing for the preliminary injunction in NAM v. Trump is scheduled for a hearing on September 11 in the Norther District of California, which is in the Ninth Circuit where Doe v. Trump and East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump should still have sway. Let us hope that the court will rule differently in that case and the desired preliminary injunction will ensue.

Building the Legal Case to Challenge Trump’s Immigration Ban

April 26, 2020/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

President Trump’s latest Proclamation is a brazen attempt to rewrite US immigration laws under the guise of protecting Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Proclamation bans most noncitizens who will enter the United States as immigrants for 60 days from April 23, 2020. Confirming the sham, Senior White House adviser Stephen Miller, according to a leaked private conference call recording, told supporters that Trump’s order to suspend immigration is part of a larger strategy to reduce overall immigration. He said that “the most important thing is to turn off the faucet of new immigration labor” and that the temporary ban would limit “chains of follow-on migration.”

Following my initial reaction to the Proclamation, in this blog I point out all its inherent contradictions to make the case that it is legally infirm and is vulnerable to challenges in court.

Although the Proclamation purports to halt permanent immigration for 60 days it leaves open the possibility of revaluation on day 50 and extending the ban. The Proclamation also leaves open the possibility of introducing other measures possibly impacting the H-1B and L visa programs. There are indications that the administration will extend the Proclamation to also limit temporary work visas as well. A draft of another version of the order would have banned noncitizens seeking entry on B, H, E, J, L and O visas, and so it would not be unexpected if the ban is eventually extended to nonimmigrant visa entrants. It is ironic that even immigration restrictionists are critical of the Proclamation as it does not go far enough, and so they will continue to exert pressure to extend the order and expand the restrictions.

Paradoxically, the Proclamation places green card holders on a lower pedestal than temporary workers tied to an employer under a pseudo economic theory that there is no way to protect Americans from the threat of competition from newly minted green card holders who can seek jobs in any sector. This false assumption is made even though some of the would be immigrants who have been banned were sponsored by employers because of their skills and who tested the US labor market for American workers prior to filing a green card application on their behalf. The Proclamation further cruelly blocks spouses and children of green card holders and even those who have won approvals based on their extraordinary ability or for being outstanding professors or researchers. Spouses and minor children of US citizens are exempted and so are physicians and nurses, along with others coming to perform work related to COVID-19.

But these exceptions are small crumbs to make it seem that the ban has a rationale, although this is clearly not so. The idea that a 60 day pause on permanent immigration will improve the unemployment situation in the US is farcical especially in light of the leaked Miller call that this is part of the administration’s long term strategy to lower immigration levels. An editorial from of the Wall Street Journal published the day before the Proclamation was promulgated makes a compelling case that immigrants do not take away jobs, and it is in fact the reverse. Below is an extract:

Nearly all of the economic evidence shows that immigrants enhance American growth and jobs. Former Federal Reserve economist Madeline Zavodny, now at the University of North Florida, examined state employment levels and immigration for the National Foundation for American Policy in 2018. States with surges of immigration like Texas and Iowa had low jobless rates. “Having more immigrants reduces the unemployment rate and raises the labor force participation rate of U.S. natives within the same sex and education group,” she found.

Rather, the purpose of the Proclamation is political posturing to please Trump’s political base, while causing untold pain and suffering on people, both US citizens and would be immigrants, who will be prevented from uniting as a result of this ban. According to this chilling NY Times story, an angry and brooding Trump impulsively thought of issuing the order when he realized that he was not polling well in battleground states.

Although Trump claims to have derived the authority to ban immigrants under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which he relied upon when he issued the travel bans and the third watered down version was upheld by the US Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii, there may be a basis to distinguish the latest Proclamation from his prior travel ban. The president cannot wholesale re-write laws enacted by Congress, and decide the sort of immigrant he prefers over another based on personal whim and prejudice. For example, EB-5 investors have been exempted from the ban while other would be immigrants who have properly obtained approvals under the law, and many who have waited for years in green card queues, have been improperly banned. While spouses and children of US citizens have been exempted, parents of US citizens have not. Diversity lottery winners are also included in the ban, and Trump’s hostility to them is apparent when he referred to them as hailing from “shithole” countries. Trump’s disapproval of family-based immigration, which he pejoratively refers to chain migration, has no relation to protecting American workers during the COVID-19 crisis.

Although the Supreme Court upheld Trump’s travel ban that focused on mainly Muslim countries, and which is why it is also appropriately called the Muslim ban, it is not a foregone conclusion that courts will uphold this ban as it completely rewrites the law based on subjective opinions and pseudo economic theories that are not consistent with the INA. Trump has used INA § 212(f) to reshape immigration laws enacted by Congress that have nothing to do with travel bans and national security. These initiatives have received push back from lower courts. On November 9, 2018, Trump issued another Proclamation invoking INA § 212(f), which banned people who cross the Southern border outside a designated port of entry from applying for asylum in the United States. The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security followed by jointly issuing a rule implementing the proclamation. The key issue is whether INA § 212(f) allowed a president like Trump with predisposed views against granting asylum to override entire visa categories or change the US asylum system? INA § 208(a)(1) categorically allows any alien who is physically present in the United States to apply for asylum regardless of his or her manner of arrival in the United States “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.” Trump attempted to change that by virtue of the authority given to him in INA § 212(f) by not allowing people who cross outside a port of entry from applying for asylum. Never mind that the administration had virtually closed the designated ports of entry for asylum seekers, which forced them to cross the border through irregular methods. In East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Trump administration had unlawfully done what the “Executive cannot do directly; amend the INA”. Indeed, even in Trump v. Hawaii, the administration successfully argued that INA § 212(f) only supplanted other provisions that allowed the administration to bar aliens from entering the United States, but did not expressly override statutory provisions. Thus, INA § 212(f) could not be used as a justification to override INA § 208. The Supreme Court has temporarily stayed the injunction in a related case that prohibits asylum seekers on the Southern border from applying for asylum in the US if they have not applied in Mexico or Guatemala – and thus by implication East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump – from taking effect until the government’s appeal in the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court is decided. There has been no ruling on the merits of the case.

On October 3, 2019, Trump yet again invoked INA § 212(f) by issuing a Proclamation to ban intending immigrants from entering the United States if they did not have health insurance within 30 days of their arrival in the United States. Under the health insurance proclamation, an intending immigrant who has satisfied all statutory requirements set out in the INA will nevertheless be permanently barred from entering the United States if that person cannot show, to the satisfaction of a consular officer, that he or she either “will be covered by approved health insurance” within 30 days of entering the United States, or “possesses the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.” In Doe v. Trump, a federal district court in Oregon temporarily blocked the health insurance proclamation through a nationwide injunction by relying on East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, supra, which specifically held that a president cannot rely on INA § 212(f) to amend the INA. In the health insurance case, Trump’s proclamation contradicts the public charge provision under INA 212(a) (4), which does not have a health insurance requirement. The Ninth Circuit has upheld the temporary order of the Oregon district court, although it has a strong dissent by Judge Bress criticizing the Oregon district court’s finding that INA $ 212(f) was unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine. Under this doctrine, associated with separation of powers, Congress cannot delegate legislative powers to the president under INA § 212(f). This argument needs to be watched more closely as it is bound to play out further when the administration defends its authority under INA § 212(f) in this case and other cases. The Supreme Court has not yet intervened in this case.

On January 31, 2020, Trump used his extraordinary broad powers under INA § 212(f) to expand his travel ban to six additional countries. The affected countries are Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan, Tanzania, Kyrgyzstan and Myanmar. The expanded ban comes about three years after the prior ban that was upheld by Trump v. Hawaii. Most of the countries targeted in this ban, like the prior travel ban, are countries with significant Muslim populations. Even Myanmar, where Buddhists constitute the majority, has a significant minority population comprising Muslims including the persecuted Rohingya people. The administration spuriously argued that the new travel ban is vital to national security and the ban will remain “until those countries address their identified deficiencies” related to security and information-sharing issues. Unlike the prior travel ban, the more recent travel ban only restricts immigrants from Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria. The restrictions on Sudan and Tanzania are narrower as they only apply to immigrants who have won green cards under the diversity program. Like Trump’s latest Proclamation, this travel ban does not apply to nonimmigrants who visit the US temporarily such as tourists, students or workers under specialized work visa programs such as the H-1B for specialty occupations or L-1 for intracompany transferees. As explained in a prior blog, the justification that the administration provided was that it is harder remove immigrants from the US is also spurious from a security perspective since all noncitizens are subject to the same removal process, able to contest the charges against them and are eligible for relief from removal. People placed in removal can remain in the US until they exhaust all their appeals. Also the justification to restrict immigrants from Tanzania and Sudan who have won green card lotteries makes even less sense. Why would one who has won the lottery in Sudan and Tanzania pose more of a risk than someone who is immigrating on another basis? The January 31, 2020 travel ban reflects Trump’s abhorrence against DV lottery winners from poorer countries, and again, like the most recent Proclamation devalues permanent immigration to the US.

Notwithstanding the prior Trump v. Hawaii ruling, it is imperative that the limits to INA § 212(f) be challenged as Trump can use this provision to radically transform immigration laws enacted by Congress, and without going through Congress to amend laws that he does not like. A challenge to the expanded ban will again give courts the ability to examine INA § 212(f). The Supreme Court, disappointingly, held in Trump v. Hawaii that INA § 212(f) “exudes deference to the President” and thus empowers him to deny entry of noncitizens if he determines that allowing entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” One should however still give credit to prior lower federal court decisions that blocked the first and second versions of the travel ban, on the grounds that Trump exceeded INA § 212(f), which were far worse than the watered down third version that was finally upheld. Although the Supreme Court may have stayed the injunction in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, it has not ruled on the merits of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning that Trump could not use INA § 212(f) to rewrite asylum law in the INA. The Supreme Court is yet to hear any challenge to the health insurance proclamation. The Ninth Circuit in both these cases did not disapprove of the reasoning by district court judges that Trump overstepped his authority notwithstanding the powers given to him under INA § 212(f). The latest Proclamation banning permanent immigration, if extended beyond 60 days and even expanded to other nonimmigrant visa categories, would provide another basis to test the limits of INA § 212(f) in federal court. Trump has rewritten the immigration law in the Proclamation according to whim and caprice that conflict with existing provisions in the INA. While the INA allows US citizens to sponsor spouses, minor children and parents as immediate relatives, Trump has rewritten the law to exclude parents of US citizens. Under the Proclamation, even adult children and siblings of US citizens have been banned. Similarly, while the INA specifically allows permanent residents to sponsor spouses, minor children and adult unmarried children, the Proclamation excludes them all together. The exception of EB-5 investors from the ban is hardly surprising given the Trump and Kushner family’s involvement in real estate development, which attracts funding from foreign investors.

The first challenge to the Proclamation was filed on April 25, 2020 in the form of an emergency Temporary Restraining Order as part of the challenge to the health insurance proclamation in Doe v. Trump as plaintiffs in the class. They are underaged children of lawful permanent residents who will be adversely impacted by the latest Proclamation if they are unable to obtain immigrant visas before they age out. This is only the opening salvo attacking the Proclamation on a narrow basis, which will inspire others, including state attorney generals to also legally challenge it. In approving Trump’s first travel ban, the majority in Trump v. Hawaii made reference to Korematsu v. United States, This was the shameful Supreme Court case that allowed the internment of Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Justice Sonia Sotomayor referencing this decision in her powerful dissent in Trump v. Hawaii. Justice Sotomayor found striking parallels between Korematsu and Trump’s travel ban. For example, they were both based on dangerous stereotypes about particular groups’ inability to assimilate and their intent to harm the United States. In both cases, there were scant national security justifications. In both cases, there was strong evidence that there was impermissible animus and hostility that motivated the government’s policy. The majority rejected the dissent’s comparison of Trump’s supposedly facially neutral travel ban to Korematsu, but still took this opportunity to overrule Korematsu. Yet, when one carefully reviews Trump’s motivations behind the travel bans, especially after the second one and this Proclamation, they are not too different from the motivations that resulted in the forced internment of Japanese Americans. Indeed, Justice Sotomayor astutely reaffirmed that “[t]he United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty.” In her rejection of the legality of the travel ban, she observed that “[t]he Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns.”

It is time to revisit the Supreme Court’s overruling of Korematsu in Trump v. Hawaii. In that case, the Supreme Court opined that the first travel ban was facially neutral and took pains to distinguish it from the repugnant Korematsu decision. The subsequent use of Trump’s authority under INA § 212(f) confirms that the first travel ban was not neutral, and this Proclamation, along with other executive orders under INA § 212(f), are strikingly similar to Korematsu as they lack any rationale. Since the first travel ban took effect, thousands of intending immigrants from the banned countries, from infants to elderly parents, have been needlessly impacted and they pose no threat to national security. The latest Proclamation’s justification is economic – the millions of job losses – than health related. The president should not be allowed to rewrite the INA based on periodic downturns in the economy since the last time Congress fixed the number of visas was in 1990, and there have been quite a few economic downturns since. Moreover, the waivers in the travel bans are a sham and are seldom granted. There are no waivers in the most recent Proclamation to those impacted, only exceptions. INA § 212(f) must have limits, courts must hold, including the Supreme Court someday. Miller’s conference call to Trump’s supporters is the smoking gun, and Exhibit A, to show in court that Trump’s latest Proclamation is a chimera – it has nothing to do with COVID-19 but is part of the long term goal of this administration to reduce immigration levels. As president of the United States, Trump is still subject to laws enacted by the US Congress. He cannot be allowed to be King and change them through whim and caprice.

Trump’s Expanded Travel Ban and Other Immigration Madness

February 2, 2020/0 Comments/in uncategorized/by Cyrus Mehta

President Trump has done it again. On January 31, 2020, he used his extraordinary broad powers under INA § 212(f) to expand his travel ban to six additional countries. The affected countries are Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan, Tanzania, Kyrgyzstan and Myanmar. The expanded ban comes about three years after the first ban. Most of the countries targeted in this ban, like the first ban, are countries with significant Muslim populations. Even Myanmar, where Buddhists constitute the majority, has a significant minority population comprising Muslims including the persecuted Rohingya people. The administration has spuriously argued that the new travel ban is vital to national security and the ban will remain “until those countries address their identified deficiencies” related to security and information-sharing issues. Even if this is the case, it is not sufficient justification to impose a travel ban on unsuspecting countries without warning and on those who have applied to immigrate to the US.

Unlike the first ban, the new ban only restricts immigrants from Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria. The restrictions on Sudan and Tanzania are narrower as they only apply to immigrants who have won green cards under the diversity program. The new ban does not apply to nonimmigrants who visit the US temporarily such as tourists, students or workers under specialized work visa programs such as the H-1B for specialty occupations or L-1 for intracompany transferees. It will also not apply to special immigrants who have been helpful to the US such as employees of US consular posts. Banning immigrants and not nonimmigrants does not make sense at all. If the administration is so concerned about US security, then those granted immigrant visas are more vetted than those who travel on temporary nonimmigrant visas. A terrorist is more likely to quickly get into the US on a temporary visa to cause harm. The justification that the administration has provided is that it is harder remove immigrants from the US is also spurious from a security perspective since all noncitizens are subject to the same removal process, able to contest the charges against them and are eligible for relief from removal. People placed in removal can remain in the US until they exhaust all their appeals. Also the justification to restrict immigrants from Tanzania and Sudan who have won green card lotteries makes even less sense. Why would one who has won the lottery in Sudan and Tanzania pose more of a risk than someone who is immigrating on another basis?

In 2018 the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii upheld a third version of the ban, after the previous versions were challenged in court, on the ground that the third version was neutral as it did not violate the First Amendment Clause of the Constitution despite Trump’s utterances in favor of banning Muslims. For instance, in his presidential campaign he called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. “ He also said, among other derogatory statements, that “Islam hates us.” This expanded ban too targets Muslim countries, and allows Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to his supporters to ban nationals from Muslim countries. This is why the first ban was rightly called the Muslim ban, and the new ban, also ought to be called the expanded Muslim ban.

Before Trump, one could hardly imagine that an American president would use INA § 212(f) to rewrite immigration law in a manner he saw fit and with whatever prejudices might be harboring in his mind. While INA § 212(f) does give extraordinary power to a president, Trump has exploited these powers beyond what could have been imagined when Congress enacted this provision. INA §212(f) states:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

In the expanded ban, Trump has blocked people who have won green card lotteries under the DV program. This is a program that Trump and immigration restrictionists in his administration clearly disfavor, but he has used INA § 212(f) to obliterate the green card provisions in the INA for Tanzanians and Sudanese. Trump has also openly indicated his animosity towards immigrants who come from “shi*hole” countries. It is hardly surprising that Trump, bolstered by a Republican dominated Senate that will likely acquit him for brazen corruption, is abusing his power under INA § 212(f) to reshape immigration law as he sees fit. Congress in enacting INA § 212(f) would have never conceived that a future president could use the provision to block green card lottery winners. Trump can decide, based on whatever prejudice he has, that anything is “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” It is eerily uncanny that Trump’s lawyers have mounted a similar defense in his impeachment trial, especially Alan Dershowitz, who nonsensically argued that “If a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

Trump has used INA § 212(f) to reshape immigration laws enacted by Congress that have nothing to do with travel bans and national security. On November 9, 2018, he issued another Proclamation invoking INA § 212(f), which banned people who cross the Southern border outside a designated port of entry from applying for asylum in the United States. The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security followed by jointly issuing a rule implementing the proclamation. The key issue is whether INA § 212(f) allowed a president like Trump with authoritarian impulses to override entire visa categories or change the US asylum system? INA § 208(a)(1) categorically allows any alien who is physically present in the United States to apply for asylum regardless of his or her manner of arrival in the United States “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.” Trump attempted to change that by virtue of the authority given to him in INA § 212(f) by not allowing people who cross outside a port of entry from applying for asylum. Never mind that the administration had virtually closed the designated ports of entry for asylum seekers, which forced them to cross the border through irregular methods. In East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742 (2018), the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Trump administration had unlawfully done what the “Executive cannot do directly; amend the INA”. Indeed, even in Trump v. Hawaii, the administration successfully argued that INA § 212(f) only supplanted other provisions that allowed the administration to bar aliens from entering the United States, but did not expressly override statutory provisions. Thus, INA § 212(f) could not be used as a justification to override INA § 208. The Supreme Court has temporarily stayed the injunction in a related case that prohibits asylum seekers on the Southern border from applying for asylum in the US if they have not applied in Mexico or Guatemala – and thus by implication East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump – from taking effect until the government’s appeal in the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court is decided. There has been no ruling on the merits of the case.

On October 3, 2019, Trump yet again invoked INA § 212(f) by issuing a Proclamation to ban intending immigrants from entering the United States if they did not have health insurance within 30 days of their arrival in the United States. Under the Proclamation, an intending immigrant who has satisfied all statutory requirements set out in the INA will nevertheless be permanently barred from entering the United States if that person cannot show, to the satisfaction of a consular officer, that he or she either “will be covered by approved health insurance” within 30 days of entering the United States, or “possesses the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.” A federal district court in Oregon temporarily blocked the health insurance proclamation through a nationwide injunction by relying on East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, supra, which specifically held that a president cannot rely on INA § 212(f) to amend the INA. In the health insurance case, Trump’s proclamation contradicts the public charge provision under INA 212(a)(4), which does not have a health insurance requirement. The Ninth Circuit has upheld the temporary order of the Oregon district court, although it has a strong dissent by Judge Bress criticizing the Oregon district court’s finding that INA $ 212(f) was unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine. Under this doctrine, associated with separation of powers, Congress cannot delegate legislative powers to the president under INA § 212(f). This argument needs to be watched more closely as it is bound to play out further when the administration defends its authority under INA § 212(f) in this case and other cases. The Supreme Court has not yet intervened in this case.

The new travel ban is bound to be challenged in federal district courts, and one or more courts may issue nationwide injunctions. The Trump administration, like in other instances, will likely take this to the Supreme Court and request a stay of the injunction. Most recently, the conservative majority in the Supreme Court stayed the injunction of a New York district court, which was confirmed by the Second Circuit, against the public charge rule. Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion along with Justice Thomas that was critical of nationwide injunctions of this sort. The concurrence complained that a single judge enjoined the government from applying the new definition of public charge to everyone without regarding to participation in this lawsuit, and that they are “patently unworkable” and sow chaos. It could also be argued that Justice Gorsuch’s lifting of a nationwide injunction would sow chaos if a law that is potentially inconsistent with a statute or unconstitutional is implemented until it is found so by the Court. And here, in the instant case, there is even further chaos as the public charge rule is being implemented everywhere after the stay of the injunction expect in Illinois. Nationwide injunctions, according to Mila Sohoni, a professor at the University of San Diego law school, are not a recent phenomenon and this practice goes all the way back to the 19^th century.

Notwithstanding all the barriers and obstacles, including the admonition against nationwide injunctions by Justice Gorsuch and the prior Trump v. Hawaii ruling, it is imperative that the limits to INA § 212(f) be challenged as Trump can use this provision to radically transform immigration laws enacted by Congress, and without going through Congress to amend laws that he does not like. A challenge to the expanded ban will again give courts the ability to examine INA § 212(f). The Supreme Court, disappointingly, held in Trump v. Hawaii that INA § 212(f) “exudes deference to the President” and thus empowers him to deny entry of noncitizens if he determines that allowing entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” One should however still give credit to prior lower federal court decisions that blocked the first and second versions of the travel ban, on the grounds that Trump exceeded INA § 212(f), which were far worse than the watered down third version that was finally upheld. Although the Supreme Court may have stayed the injunction in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, it has not ruled on the merits of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning that Trump could not use INA § 212(f) to rewrite asylum law in the INA. The Supreme Court is yet to hear any challenge to the health insurance proclamation. The Ninth Circuit in both these cases did not disapprove of the reasoning by district court judges that Trump overstepped his authority notwithstanding the powers given to him under INA § 212(f).

In issuing the expanded travel ban, which takes effect on February 21, 2020, Trump has abused his authority in selectively blocking immigrants from predominantly African nations. This ban too, like the last one, will equally impact US citizens who have legitimately sponsored family members under the law as they will not be prevented from reuniting in the US. The ban also arbitrarilyy, and without foundation, blocks green card lottery winners from two nations. Nigerians will be most impacted by the new ban as they by far make up the largest number of African immigrants in the US, numbering approximately 327,000. A connection between Trump’s ban and Nigeria can be made to a meeting in the Oval Office in June 2017 when Trump told his advisers in the Oval Office in June 2017 that Nigerians who set foot in the US would never “go back to their huts” in Africa. This ban will result in the isolation of the US while other countries will benefit. The new ban also does nothing to enhance US national security. Since it does not apply to nonimmigrant visa entries, US citizens who are not yet married to their spouses in any of the newly banned countries may file a nonimmigrant K-1 visa fiance petition. Once the fiance enters the US on a K-1 fiance visa, they can marry the US citizen and adjust status to permanent residence. It makes no sense for a person from a banned country to delay a marriage with a US citizen in order to be eligible for a K-1 fiance visa, but this is what Trump’s illogical ban forces them to do in addition to making every national of the banned country a suspect.

In approving Trump’s first travel ban, the majority in Trump v. Hawaii made reference to Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). This was the shameful Supreme Court case that allowed the internment of Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Justice Sonia Sotomayor referencing this decision in her powerful dissent in Trump v. Hawaii. Justice Sotomayor found striking parallels between Korematsu and Trump’s travel ban. For example, they were both based on dangerous stereotypes about particular groups’ inability to assimilate and their intent to harm the United States. In both cases, there were scant national security justifications. In both cases, there was strong evidence that there was impermissible animus and hostility that motivated the government’s policy. The majority rejected the dissent’s comparison of Trump’s supposedly facially neutral travel ban to Korematsu, but still took this opportunity to overrule Korematsu. Yet, when one carefully reviews Trump’s motivations behind the travel bans, especially after the second one, they are not too different from the motivations that resulted in the forced internment of Japanese Americans. Indeed, Justice Sotomayor astutely reaffirmed that “[t]he United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty.” In her rejection of the legality of the travel ban, she observed that “[t]he Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns.”

How the Founding Values of Two Great Nations – United States and India – Can Get Hollowed Out Through Tweaks in their Immigration Laws

December 14, 2019/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

Until President Trump of the United States and Prime Minister Modi of India came to power, it was unimaginable that democratically elected leaders could cynically tweak immigration laws to undermine the founding values of their nations.

America has unquestionably been viewed as a nation of immigrants and a beacon of liberty for the world’s persecuted until Trump came on the scene. Trump cruelly reduced refugee admissions to a trickle and toughened asylum laws. He has separated children from parents fleeing violence in Central American countries and virtually eliminated their ability to legally claim asylum under US immigration law. Most recently, our colleagues have been able to witness firsthand that the tent courts under Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy, are totally and shockingly lacking in due process. Worse still, Trump fulfilled his campaign pledge by imposing a travel ban on countries with mostly Muslim populations in the name of national security. All of these actions, and many more architected by Trump’s openly xenophobic Senior Advisor Steven Miller, have undermined American ideals symbolized by the Statue of Liberty. Even the new public charge rule has been designed to keep out less wealthy immigrants from countries that Trump derisively called “s-hole countries”. Trump’s then acting USCIS chief Cuccinelli uglily distorted the famous Emma Lazarus poem associated with Lady Liberty by saying, “Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge.”

Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bhartiya Janata Party got a second five year term after winning a thumping parliamentary majority in May 2019. India is the world’s largest democracy and 900 million people were eligible to vote in the last general election. Voter turnout in that election was the highest at 67%. While campaigning for the BJP, Amit Shah, now India’s powerful Home Minister, likened unauthorized immigrants from Bangladesh as termites and vowed to throw them in the Bay of Bengal. Soon after resuming power, the BJP revoked the autonomy of Kashmir in August, the only Muslim majority state in India, and detained its political leaders. Continuing on the same Hindu nationalist trajectory, the BJP pushed through the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) that amends the Citizenship Act of 1955. The CAA provides for a pathway to citizenship for Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and Parsis who came to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014, even illegally, but excludes Muslims. Most of the immigrants who are in India since that time are Muslims. It is also interesting to note that CAA excludes Jews and potentially atheists, although if there are any who are affected, they may be very few in comparison to the millions of Muslim immigrants who have been living in India for decades. The BJP justifies the CAA as a means for sheltering persecuted minorities in neighboring countries, although this makes little sense as Muslims have borne the brunt of persecution in those countries especially the Ahmadiyya and Shia from Pakistan and the Rohingya from Myanmar.

The CAA is far more pernicious when viewed in conjunction with India’s controversial National Register of Citizens, which is part of the Indian government’s efforts to identify unauthorized immigrants in the northeastern state of Assam who allegedly came from neighboring Bangladesh, even though they have lived in Assam for decades. When the NRC was published in August, about 2 million people were not able to establish that they were in India since 1971. Most of them were Muslims and some of them were Hindus. The CAB will protect Hindus who are not on the NRC by affording them citizenship while Muslims who cannot prove that they are citizens will ultimately be kept in massive detention camps and ultimately deported. Home Minister Amit Shah, who like Steve Miller in Trump’s administration, is the mastermind behind these cruel and divisive policies, plans to extend the NRC across the country that will catch many more million Muslims suspected of being in India illegally. One should note that many of the affected Muslims live in abject poverty and have hardly preserved documents to establish their entry into India by a cutoff date many decades earlier. Many have also been valiant survivors of cyclones that ravage those eastern parts of India that might have washed away their homes, meagre belongings and documents.

Although Muslims have been subjected to discrimination and violence under the BJP administration, and the excellent profile of Modi in the New Yorker reveals why, the CAA takes this discrimination to a new level as it completely contradicts India’s founding ideal as a plural and secular nation. As the Economist has aptly commented, “To accept religion as a basis for speedier citizenship is to cock a snook at India’s own founding fathers, who proudly contrasted their vision of an open, pluralist society against the closed, Islamic purity of next-door Pakistan.”

Although Trump’s Muslim ban was successfully blocked by lower federal courts, the US Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii upheld a watered down version of it in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing the majority opinion, found that Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality (INA) “exudes deference to the President” and thus empowers him to deny entry of noncitizens if he determines that allowing entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Although Trump made various utterances regarding his animus towards Muslims during his campaign and even after he became president, the majority found the third version of the Executive Order to be neutral on its face and that it did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Several of Trump’s other immigration policies such as his blocking of asylum seekers and public charge rule are still being reviewed by the courts.

CAA’s legitimacy will also soon be tested in the Indian Supreme Court. Article 14 of India’s Constitution provides, “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” It remains to be seen whether India’s Supreme Court strikes down CAA as unconstitutional or whether it will affirm a law that is blatantly discriminatory against Muslims just as the US Supreme Court upheld Trump’s Muslim ban. It is also rather strange to use religion as a litmus test for citizenship. How does one prove one’s religion, especially when he or she may be not openly practicing it? The fact that Muslims can apply for Indian visas, OCI status or citizenship under other provisions of the Citizenship Act is beside the point. CAA’s blatantly discriminatory intent will subject millions of Muslims to statelessness, detention and deportation while those of other religions even if unauthorized will get a smooth ride to Indian citizenship. It is no surprise that CAA has resulted in massive protests across India and an unjustified harsh police response.

While leaders like Trump and Modi tweak immigration laws for political advantage, they not just undermine the founding values of their nations but also cause great havoc and distress to millions of people. People who vote for them may perceive certain advantages, such as economic or otherwise, but they must also realize that those perceived benefits are hollow if the soul of the nation is eviscerated through cynical manipulation of the immigration laws.

Fallout from Trump’s Muslim Ban: Requiring Use of Social Media on Visa Application Forms

June 8, 2019/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

On May 31, 2019, the State Department added new questions to visa application forms, DS-160/DS-156 Nonimmigrant Visa Application and Form DS-260, Immigrant Visa Application. Visa applicants now have to disclose the social media platforms that they have used within the previous five years and provide their user names or handle for each platform. This information needs to be provided through a drop down list of common social media platforms, although some of the platforms listed are defunct. Applicants are instructed to not provide the passwords for these accounts. Additional questions requesting the applicant’s current e mail and phone number, as well as a list of additional e mail addresses and phone numbers used in the past five years also now appear on the forms. If applicants are unable to provide the precise details, they can insert “unknown”, but this could result in additional screening or delays during the visa process.

The new policy has caused worldwide concern as it is expected to affect 710,000 immigrant visa applicants and 14 million nonimmigrant visa applicants.

This policy has its genesis in President Trump’s travel ban of January 27, 2017 executive order 13769, which banned nationals from seven Muslim countries from entering the US- Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. After this executive order was blocked by courts, the Trump administration issued a repackaged March 6, 2017 executive order 13780, which banned nationals from six of the seven countries subject to the original executive order. Iraq was taken off the list. After even the March 6, 2017 executive order was found unconstitutional by the fourth and ninth circuit courts of appeals, the March 2017 executive order was subsequently revised through a third proclamation 9645 dated September 24, 2017, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii. Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing the 5-4 majority opinion, found that Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality (INA) “exudes deference to the President” and thus empowers him to deny entry of noncitizens if he determines that allowing entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” There has already been much criticism of this decision. Although Trump made various utterances regarding his animus towards Muslims during his campaign and even after he became president, the majority found the third version of Trump’s ban on its face and that it did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of Constitution.

Section 5 of the March 6, 2017 executive order provided the basis for the new social media screening policy:

Implementing Uniform Screening and Vetting Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence shall implement a program, as part of the process for adjudications, to identify individuals who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry. This program shall include the development of a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that applicants are who they claim to be; a mechanism to assess whether applicants may commit, aid, or support any kind of violent, criminal, or terrorist acts after entering the United States; and any other appropriate means for ensuring the proper collection of all information necessary for a rigorous evaluation of all grounds of inadmissibility or grounds for the denial of other immigration benefits.

Section 5 of the September 24, 2017 proclamation further provided:

Reports on Screening and Vetting Procedures. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and other appropriate heads of agencies shall submit periodic reports to the President, through appropriate Assistants to the President, that:

(i) describe the steps the United States Government has taken to improve vetting for nationals of all foreign countries, including through improved collection of biometric and biographic data;

(ii) describe the scope and magnitude of fraud, errors, false information, and unverifiable claims, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security on the basis of a validation study, made in applications for immigration benefits under the immigration laws; and

(iii) evaluate the procedures related to screening and vetting established by the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs in order to enhance the safety and security of the United States and to ensure sufficient review of applications for immigration benefits.

Subsequently, in March 2018, the State Department provided 60 day notices in the federal register regarding its intent to include social media information in the DS 160 and DS 260 visa applications. Although AILA provided comprehensive comments in response to the notices expressing concern about how these questions would discourage individuals from applying for a visa, rendering it impossible to respond accurately to questions relating to temporary telephone numbers as well as concerns about how it will be used, the State Department nevertheless went ahead and introduced these additional questions on May 31, 2019.

The new questions on social media thus stem from the same executive order that caused worldwide consternation against the US when it banned millions of people from mainly Muslim countries in keeping with Trump’s earlier campaign pledge to ban Muslims. Although the September 24, 2017 executive order was upheld by the Supreme Court, the US has suffered worldwide reputational damage due to the indiscriminate banning of persons solely because because of their nationality. Countries like Iran and Yemen have been particularly affected as many thousands of their nationals have legitimate ties with the US. Thousands of families remain separated as a result of what is widely come to be known as Trump’s Muslim ban.

Justifying the new questions on social media, a State Department official stated, “As we’ve seen around the world in recent years, social media can be a major forum for terrorist sentiment and activity. This will be a vital tool to screen out terrorists, public safety threats, and other dangerous individuals from gaining immigration benefits and setting foot on U.S. soil.” But social media has never been a reliable indicator in determining whether someone is a threat to US or not. A post that was written many years ago could also be taken out of context and be easily misunderstood or misinterpreted, resulting in a denial of the visa. This would also create a chilling effect on people and some may feel that participating in a political online discussion could hinder their visa approval hopes.

There is also no ground of inadmissibility in the INA that should apply if one legitimately opposes the United States, its polices or even President Trump. Even if one wishes to come to the US as a visitor for pleasure to participate in a peaceful protest that in itself should not be the sole basis for denying a visa. Under 22 CFR 41.31(b)(2) pleasure is defined as “[l]egitimate activities of a recreational character, including tourism, amusement, visits with friends or relatives, rest, medical treatment and activities of a fraternal, social or service nature.” Clearly, being part of a peaceful protest with like-minded people could constitute activities of a “fraternal” or “social” nature. 9 FAM 402.2-4(A)(3) also contemplates as visitors for pleasure “[p]articipants in conventions of social organizations.” Still INA 214(b) provides unbridled discretion to a consular officer to refuse most nonimmigrant visas as such an applicant “shall be presumed to be an immigrant” until it is established that he or she is entitled to the nonimmigrant status under INA 101(a)(15). The consular officer need not provide a reason for the refusal. Even if the visa applicant can demonstrate his or her ties with the home country, the visa can still be refused if all the activities in the US are not consistent with the visa. See 9 FAM 302.1-2 (B)(6). Furthermore, if the social media profile is not consistent with an applicant’s employment history that is required for the eligibility of a visa, such as an L-1 intracompany visa that requires one year of prior employment with a qualifying entity abroad, it could be used as a basis for denial, and even a recommendation to the USCIS to revoke the underlying visa petition.

Unfortunately, there exist grounds of inadmissibility that may trigger upon a review of one’s social media. One ground is under INA 212(a)(3)(A)(i), which allows a consular to find inadmissible one, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that he or she seeks to enter the US to engage principally or incidentally in “any other unlawful activity.” Still, one’s legitimate expression of free speech on social media should not lead to the inference that this person will engage in unlawful activity in the US. Then, there is also the extremely broad ground of inadmissibility for terrorist activity under INA 212(a)(3)(B)(II) that allows a consular officer to render the applicant inadmissible if there is a reasonable ground to believe that he or she is engaged or is likely to engage in terrorist activity. Even with respect to this ground, one’s expression of free speech that is generally protected under the First Amendment, however objectionable it may be to the consular officer, ought not to lead to an inference that the applicant will engage in terrorist activity.

Then, there is the possibility that if the information on social media use is not submitted accurately on the visa application due to a misunderstanding, the issuance of the visa can be held up, or worse, the applicant can be rendered inadmissible for fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact pursuant to INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). Someone who inadvertently forgets to reveal a social media handle from over 4 years ago can argue that the misrepresentation was neither willful nor material. According to 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(4), the “term ‘willfully’ as used in INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) is interpreted to mean knowingly and intentionally, as distinguished from accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise.” Even if an applicant willfully misrepresents, it must be a material misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is material if “[t]he misrepresentation tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien’s eligibility and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that he or she be inadmissible.” See 9 FAM 302.9-4 (citing Matter of S- and B-C, 9 I. & N. Dec. 436, at 447). Unfortunately, even when one can overcome a finding of inadmissibility, it is a very difficult and protracted process to convince a consular officer to reverse an unfavorable determination. Moreover, deleting social media handles prior to completing a visa form will serve no benefit whatsoever, as the question asks for use of social media in the past 5 years without regard to whether one is using them presently or not. It will also lead to further suspicion and thus delays and denials.

The additional questions on visa forms relating to social media are a logical extension of Trump’s Muslim ban – rather it is more like going down the proverbial slippery slope. The countries affected by the ban were few but the added instruction on the forms to profile and suspect people based on their social media use will impact millions more. It remains to be seen whether other countries will also impose similar questions on their visa forms. Such copycat actions can be used to retaliate against American visa applicants or by other countries who want to screen out nationals of countries they find undesirable. The questions will dissuade applicants from visiting the US temporarily for legitimate purposes. These questions will also unfortunately result in unfounded and arbitrary denials of visa applications of those who are coming to the US both temporarily and permanently, thus depriving US educational institutions of foreign students and US businesses from increased business through tourism. Those legitimately sponsored for permanent residency by family members, employers or through investment will also be adversely impacted. The policy is also going to create a chilling effect on people as some may feel participating in a political online discussion could hinder their visa approval hopes. It would hope that people are not denied a visa based on a tweet that’s deemed to be against American policies that is consistent with free speech protected under the First Amendment. Otherwise, the only loser will be America, whose standing has already been diminished after the implementation of the Muslim ban.

Threading the Needle: Challenging Trump’s Travel Ban Despite Trump v. Hawaii

July 2, 2018/1 Comment/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta & Sophia Genovese

On June 26, 2018, the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in Trump v. Hawaii upheld President Trump’s travel ban against seven countries, the majority of which are predominantly Muslim. Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing the majority opinion, found that Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality (INA) “exudes deference to the President” and thus empowers him to deny entry of noncitizens if he determines that allowing entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

There has already been much criticism of this decision. Although Trump made various utterances regarding his animus towards Muslims during his campaign and even after he became president, the majority found the third version of the Executive Order to be neutral on its face and that it did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of Constitution. Still, ironically, the majority made reference to Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) as a result of Justice Sonia Sotomayor referencing this decision in her powerful dissent. She found striking parallels between Korematsu and Trump’s travel ban. For example, they were both based on dangerous stereotypes about particular groups’ inability to assimilate and their intent to harm the United States. In both cases, there were scant national security justifications. In both cases, there was strong evidence that there was impermissible animus and hostility that motivated the government’s policy.

The majority rejected the dissent’s comparison of Trump’s supposedly facially neutral travel ban to Korematsu, but still took this opportunity to overrule Korematsu. Yet, when one carefully reviews Trump’s motivations behind the travel ban, it is not too different from the motivations that resulted in the forced internment of Japanese Americans. Indeed, Justice Sotomayor astutely reaffirmed that “[t]he United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty.” In her rejection of the legality of the travel ban, she observed that “[t]he Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns.”

The irony here is that although the majority found that the motivation behind the executive order that resulted in the internment of Japanese-Americans was gravely wrong and has no place in law under our Constitution while Trump’s travel ban is facially neutral, the ban has resulted in the tragic and forced separation of families from the banned countries. It has also prevented the future entry of skilled people from these countries. For instance, if a US citizen sponsors a parent of Iranian nationality, that parent can never immigrate to the United States under the travel ban. The same prohibition would be applicable to a spouse who is an Iranian national who is the beneficiary of an approved I-130 petition filed by her US citizen spouse. While there are supposedly waivers for entry, as Justice Breyer in his separate dissent observed, the Government “is not applying the Proclamation as written,” where the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security have failed to issue guidance to consular officials on the issuance of waivers, and where only 430 waivers have been issued in total, representing “a miniscule percentage of those likely eligible for visas.” Justice Breyer points to a particularly egregious example of a travel ban waiver denial of a child with cerebral palsy from Yemen to demonstrate his point. Due to the war in Yemen, he explained, the young child could no longer access her medication for her disease, and was thus no longer able to move or speak and was going to die if she did not receive treatment soon. Despite this predicament and the young child’s clear eligibility for a waiver according to Presidential Proclamation 9645 (explaining that case-by-case waivers may be granted in circumstances involving, for example, “the foreign national is an infant, a young child or adoptee, an individual needing urgent medical care, or someone whose entry is otherwise justified by the special circumstances of the case”), the consular official denied her waiver. After this story had been highlighted in an amicus brief before the Supreme Court, the family received an update from the consulate that they were eligible for waivers; however, instead of receiving visas, the case was put into administrative processing. It took several more months and international attention to get this child a waiver, indicating that these waivers are not being granted despite an individual’s clear eligibility for them, as outlined in the EO.

If waivers of those who are clearly eligible do not get approved, and one can find a pattern of wholesale denials that are consistent with Trump’s animus and hostility towards people from these banned nations, then it may be possible to assert that the motivations behind the denial of the waivers are based on improper stereotyping of certain nationalities that have no place under our Constitution, like the majority in Trump v. Hawaii found in Korematsu. Finding parallels behind the motivations that resulted in the forced internment of Japanese Americans to the wholesale denial of entry to people eligible for visas just because they happen to be nationals of predominantly Muslim countries could potentially result in further litigation that can overrule the ban, or at least force the Administration to actually implement its waiver process as outlined in the Proclamation. This will no longer be the facially neutral policy that the majority gave a pass to, rather the application of that policy through a sham waiver process will put more focus on the animus displayed by Trump towards Muslims. In other words, the failure to issue waivers, if shown to be a result of Trump’s animus towards Muslims, could be used as evidence to show that not only is the waiver process a sham, but could invalidate the entire EO in a future challenge.

It is at this juncture that Justice Kennedy’s tepid concurrence can provide the ammunition for future plaintiffs who challenge the waivers, and thus Trump’s travel ban. The following extract from Justice Kennedy’s concurrence is worth quoting in verbatim:

There may be some common ground between the opinions in this case, in that the Court does acknowledge that in some instances, governmental action may be subject to judicial review to determine whether or not it is “inexplicable by anything but animus,” Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 632 (1996), which in this case would be animosity to a religion. Whether judicial proceedings may properly continue in this case, in light of the substantial deference that is and must be accorded to the Executive in the conduct of foreign affairs, and in light of today’s decision, is a matter to be addressed in the first instance on remand. And even if further proceedings are permitted, it would be necessary to determine that any discovery and other preliminary matters would not themselves intrude on the foreign affairs power of the Executive…

There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of Government officials are not subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention. That does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects. The oath that all officials take to adhere to the Constitution is not confined to those spheres in which the Judiciary can correct or even comment upon what those officials say or do. Indeed, the very fact that an official may have broad discretion, discretion free from judicial scrutiny, makes it all the more imperative for him or her to adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise.

The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion and promises the free exercise of religion. From these safeguards, and from the guarantee of freedom of speech, it follows there is freedom of belief and expression. It is an urgent necessity that officials adhere to these constitutional guarantees and mandates in all their actions, even in the sphere of foreign affairs. An anxious world must know that our Government remains committed always to the liberties the Constitution seeks to preserve and protect, so that freedom extends outward, and lasts.

Thus, all hope is not lost for future plaintiffs adversely impacted by the travel ban. There might be a way to thread the needle by demonstrating that the actual application of the Executive Order, which the majority found facially neutral, is no longer so neutral if waivers are denied wholesale by government officials that are motivated by Trump’s original animus towards Muslims. It was this animus that resulted in the first two versions of the travel ban that were struck down by the lower courts of appeals, and which resulted in the third ban that was the subject of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii. It was also the same majority in Trump v. Hawaii that found Korematsu abhorrent but distinguished it from the supposedly facially neutral Executive Order of Trump. But plaintiffs can show that this very same EO is no longer neutral because the waivers are not accessible as misrepresented by the Government in Trump v. Hawaii. As explained above, there have been no official guidelines issued by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security regarding how consular officials will adjudicate waivers, and whether those denied can seek further redress or review within the administrative system. Such a failing to issue waivers or at least issue guidance to obtain these waivers again calls into question the ‘neutrality’ of the ban. Once the improper motivation can be shown, especially through the application of the waivers, litigants can again potentially challenge the ban.

As we’ve previously explained, while INA § 212(f) grants wide discretion to the President, “maximum power does not mean absolute power.” Aziz v. Trump, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20889, at *11 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017). Once plaintiffs find an opening by challenging the ban through the sham waiver process, other authorities that limit the power of the President can spring to life. For example, in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Court found that the power of the Executive is “subject to important constitutional limitations.” In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Court stated that the President’s Article II powers are subject to review, and ruled that citizens held as enemy combatants must be afforded due process rights, namely the meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for their detention. In Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008), the Supreme Court declared that the political branches cannot “switch the Constitution on or off at will” and extended the right of habeas review to a non-citizen outside the US. Moreover, in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Courts were empowered to review whether or not “Congress has chosen a constitutionally permissible means of implementing” the “regulation of aliens.” And as was argued in the Ninth Circuit, even under Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), the Court can review the actions of the Executive branch, noting that but for their ability to review, there would be no “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” test to measure executive exercises of immigration authority.

Finally, until Trump became President, no one realized that INA § 212(f) could be applied so broadly so as to eviscerate visa classifications created by Congress. Trump v. Hawaii will embolden Trump even further to restrict legal immigration without going through Congress. For instance, he may apply 212(f) to certain family preference categories and restrict the entry of foreign nationals who are the beneficiaries of approved I-130 petitions, by declaring that their entry will be detrimental to the interest of the United States. The same would be true if Trump hypothetically decided to restrict H-1B beneficiaries, say from India, because he believed that their entry into the US would be inconsistent with his Buy American Hire American Executive Order, and thus detrimental to the interest of the United States. It is at this point that a less pliant Congress may have to step up and limit the broad language under 212(f) so that a president like Trump with authoritarian impulses will not be able to trample upon the separation of powers doctrine.

As Trump v. Hawaii passes through the ages, the dissents of Justice Sotomayor and Justice Breyer will have more force than the majority opinion. A powerful dissent signals to another court that the majority got it wrong, similar to Justice Murphy’s dissent in Korematsu. A dissent also sends a signal to Congress that it can overrule a Supreme Court decision by changing the law. This is how Justice Ginsburg’s powerful dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 550 U.S. 618 (2007), resulted in Congress enacting the Ledbetter Equal Pay Act. There is thus hope for the nation to redeem itself if a future Congress modifies INA § 212(f) thus effectively overruling Trump v. Hawaii.