A federal court in Maryland has rejected the Trump administration’s bid to outright dismiss IRAP v. Trump, a lawsuit challenging the president’s Muslim ban executive order that bars people from select Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the United States.
International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) pens an op-ed on the failure of the Muslim Ban's promised "waiver process."
News from ACLU: Federal Appeals Court rules against Trump Muslim Ban.
December 4, 2017 ACLU Comment on Supreme Court Action on Trump Muslim Ban.
IRAP v. Trump - Respondents' Opposition to Application for Stay from November 28, 2017.
A federal court in Maryland blocked President Trump’s latest Muslim ban from going into effect today. This follows a federal court in Hawaii issuing a similar ruling on Tuesday in another challenge. The Middle East Studies Association, represented by the ACLU, had been in court Monday in Maryland with its fellow plaintiffs to challenge this latest version of the ban — the president’s third such attempt.
ACLU Download page for the INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT V. TRUMP - BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
Today, the Supreme Court removed Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project from the oral argument calendar. The parties are now required to submit briefs by October 5 to determine the impact of last night’s proclamation amending the previous executive order.
In response to these developments, plaintiffs and counsel in Trump v. IRAP issued the following statements:
The U.S. Supreme Court today granted, in part, the Trump administration’s request to allow some provisions of its Muslim ban to go into effect in 72 hours. The Court will allow the ban to be applied only to individuals with no connection to any person or entity in the U.S. In an unsigned order issued on the Court’s last day before its summer recess, the justices scheduled oral arguments in the case for when they return in October.
IRAP v. Trump - Brief in Opposition of June 12, 2017.
In a 10-3 ruling, a federal appeals court today ruled President Trump’s revised Muslim ban executive order is unconstitutional. The full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case earlier this month.
May 8, 2017 oral arguments held before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in IRAP v. Trump.
ACLU's Cody Wofsy writes an article about the pending oral arguments before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in IRAP. v. Trump.
The Trump administration today appealed a ruling by a federal court in Maryland that blocked part of President Trump’s executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries to the U.S.
A federal court in Maryland issued an injunction blocking President Trump’s new Muslim ban executive order early this morning, just hours after a Hawaii court issued a nationwide injunction in a separate challenge. The Middle East Studies Association (MESA), along with refugee groups, had joined a lawsuit, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center, in federal district court seeking the injunction.
Civil rights and refugee groups today asked a federal court in Maryland to block the Trump administration’s revised executive order, arguing that it would cause irreparable harm for their plaintiffs. The order, which still maintains the suspension of refugee resettlement along with banning entry of nationals from six Muslim-majority countries, was issued on March 6.