Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump's Executive Order Aimed at Refugees
Jacob Greene
Published Aug 15, 2024
Once again, the federal courts are proving that the rule of law does in fact apply to the administration of President Donald J. Trump. A federal judge in Maryland blocked an executive order by the President to require state governors to affirmatively agree in writing to accept resettled refugees in their state. Like many other federal courts that are not named the Supreme Court, judges are not accepting the legal justifications offered by the Trump Administration for their draconian rules meant to punish the poor and the vulnerable. However, the judge's restraining order is only temporary at this point.
Trump had issued the order in September as a means of giving states more of a say in the process of refugee resettlement. However, this order was certainly not intended to allow states to perform a constructive role. Instead, the Executive Order was meant to give states a veto power as a way of keeping refugees out of their borders as was proven by Governor Abbott. According to the Administration, the Executive Order was meant to place refugees only in states that were prepared for them and wanted their presence. This was yet another attempt by the immigrant-vilifying Administration to disrupt the legal process that Congress set up many years ago that provide protection for those seeking refuge.
Governors Were not Buying Trump's Brand of Refugee Vilification
Notwithstanding Trump's attempts to wreak havoc in the lives of refugees, 42 governors signed letters of acceptance for these refugees. This included many states with Republican governors. State governments have not uniformly signed off on the excesses of the Trump Administration and many have still been occasional examples of moderation.
This Executive Order is another attempt to kill off the refugee program. In 2016, the last year of the Obama Administration, the United States accepted 110,000 refugees into the country. Now, Trump has set the cap for refugees at 18,000, which is a historic low.
Once Again, Trump Loses in Court: It's a Habit
Three different refugee resettlement agencies filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Executive Order. Since the Republican-controlled Senate will certainly not move any legislation, aggrieved parties have been forced to go to the courts to seek relief. For the most part, these courts have found that the Trump Administration has overreached and broken the law with its Executive Orders.
When the case went to court, the Justice Department argued that the Executive Order did not give states veto power over the ability to accept refugees. This is because the Secretary of State could theoretically override the state's decision. Of course, the chance of that happening with Trump sycophant Mike Pompeo roaming the halls at Foggy Bottom are slim to none.
The court's decision was premised on the fact that refugee resettlement was part of a statute that was validly passed by Congress. In effect, the Executive Order would give the state states the power to override something that is already committed to law. Further, the court said that the Trump Administration's policy did nothing to serve the public interest.
For now, refugee resettlement agencies can continue their efforts to resettle refugees without having to get permission and consent from the states. The injunction preventing the Executive Order from taking effect is only temporary. However, one of the major reasons that the judge gave for issuing the injunction is that the government had very little chance of winning when the actual legality of the Executive Order is decided. It still remains for this decision to be issued, but it is rare from a judge to issue a temporary restraining order and then back the policy that is being challenged.
Of course, there is always a possibility that this case could make its way all the way to the Supreme Court. There, the stolen majority may act as a rubber stamp for Trump's extreme immigration policies, much as they did when they signed off on Trump's Muslim ban.
The Trump Administration issued an executive order meant to restrict the resettlement of refugees. This executive order was meant to allow states to decide whether or not they wanted refugees within their borders. Most Republican governors, including Larry Hogan of Maryland, defied the President and opted to allow refugees in their states. One notable exception to this was Texas' Greg Abbott who opted to bar refugees from his state where many of them had settled in the past.
Trump had issued the order in September as a means of giving states more of a say in the process of refugee resettlement. However, this order was certainly not intended to allow states to perform a constructive role. Instead, the Executive Order was meant to give states a veto power as a way of keeping refugees out of their borders as was proven by Governor Abbott. According to the Administration, the Executive Order was meant to place refugees only in states that were prepared for them and wanted their presence. This was yet another attempt by the immigrant-vilifying Administration to disrupt the legal process that Congress set up many years ago that provide protection for those seeking refuge.
Governors Were not Buying Trump's Brand of Refugee Vilification
Notwithstanding Trump's attempts to wreak havoc in the lives of refugees, 42 governors signed letters of acceptance for these refugees. This included many states with Republican governors. State governments have not uniformly signed off on the excesses of the Trump Administration and many have still been occasional examples of moderation.
This Executive Order is another attempt to kill off the refugee program. In 2016, the last year of the Obama Administration, the United States accepted 110,000 refugees into the country. Now, Trump has set the cap for refugees at 18,000, which is a historic low.
Once Again, Trump Loses in Court: It's a Habit
Three different refugee resettlement agencies filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Executive Order. Since the Republican-controlled Senate will certainly not move any legislation, aggrieved parties have been forced to go to the courts to seek relief. For the most part, these courts have found that the Trump Administration has overreached and broken the law with its Executive Orders.
When the case went to court, the Justice Department argued that the Executive Order did not give states veto power over the ability to accept refugees. This is because the Secretary of State could theoretically override the state's decision. Of course, the chance of that happening with Trump sycophant Mike Pompeo roaming the halls at Foggy Bottom are slim to none.
The court's decision was premised on the fact that refugee resettlement was part of a statute that was validly passed by Congress. In effect, the Executive Order would give the state states the power to override something that is already committed to law. Further, the court said that the Trump Administration's policy did nothing to serve the public interest.
For now, refugee resettlement agencies can continue their efforts to resettle refugees without having to get permission and consent from the states. The injunction preventing the Executive Order from taking effect is only temporary. However, one of the major reasons that the judge gave for issuing the injunction is that the government had very little chance of winning when the actual legality of the Executive Order is decided. It still remains for this decision to be issued, but it is rare from a judge to issue a temporary restraining order and then back the policy that is being challenged.
Of course, there is always a possibility that this case could make its way all the way to the Supreme Court. There, the stolen majority may act as a rubber stamp for Trump's extreme immigration policies, much as they did when they signed off on Trump's Muslim ban.
