On January 27, 2017, shortly after his inauguration as the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 13769, titled “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” The EO immediately drew criticism from the media and those opposed the new President. Labeling it a Muslim ban, travel ban, or immigration ban by some source, some reports called the order unconstitutional, while others said it was constitutional. All of this controversy caught my attention, and I began to wonder what the truth was. My first point of the research was evident, the executive order itself. I went to the White House website and found the list of executive orders in the “Briefing Room” section under “Presidential …show more content…
Code Title 8, and section 301 of U.S. Code Title 3 contained in the order purporting to give the President the authority to issue such an order. U.S. Code Title 3, defines the General authorization to delegate functions given to the President. U.S. Code Title 8, contains the public law for Aliens, Nationality, Chapter 12, defines Immigration, and Nationality, Subchapter II defines Immigration and contains the information found in the INA. Specific citations in sections 3 and 5 of the EO, Section 3: Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that states in part, “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 any restrictions he may deem to be …show more content…
My next point of investigation brought me to Washington State vs. Donald J Trump, et al., in the Western District of Washington State. In this case, the States of Washington and Minnesota challenged the constitutionality of the EO. The States also sought a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the actions of the U.S Government in the enforcement of parts of the EO. On February 3, 2017, Judge James L. Robart heard from both parties in regards to the TRO. I watched the video of the hearing and listened to case presented to the judge and his ruling. First, they established standing in the case. To bring a lawsuit one must prove harm from the law to challenge it. The state established standing by presenting the damage to its universities and colleges. The state successfully showed the EO either prevented current legal immigrant residents from the seven countries listed in the EO that were students or facility on official and recreational travel from returning from travel outside of the United States and prevented those in the country from leaving for fear of not being able to