Can someone explain to me the status of Trumps executive orders ?

[intexasatthe moment]

So he signs an executive order and it directs policy .

And people set about implementing ( stopping people from 7 countries entering US ) or trying to implement ( replace Obamacare with something else ) and that carries on until a legal challenge is succesful ?

Can Congress intervene /block executive orders apart from approving a judicial review ?

I'm very confused and ignorant .

[intexasatthe moment]

So 2 judges ( one in Brooklyn and one in Virginia ) have put a ?temporary stop to travellers from the 7 affected countries stuck in US airports from being deported .

So will stranded travellers in states where judges haven't taken this action be in danger of being deported ?

[intexasatthe moment]

And those travellers who can no longer be deported but still cant enter US ....? Stranded at airport I guess until further developments .

I suppose they could change travel plans and fly out of US to somewhere else . If they had finances and somewhere else to go ????

[Jenny1]

You'll probably have seen the case mentioned on the BBC website of the young woman studying veterinary medicine at Glasgow. She has an Iranian passport and went on holiday to Costa Rica with her boyfriend. Now they're not allowed to board the plane home because the flight goes via the US. Buying new tickets via Madrid will cost ?2600 which they can ill afford.

As I understand it the judges are reacting to the individual situations that this executive order have created - not the 'constitutionality' of that order.

[intexasatthe moment]

ah ,yes that makes sense jenny .

I wonder how the constitutional aspect could be challenged - congress agreeing to a judicial review ? Which would mean Republicans breaking ranks ? Which I guess it's a little early for ?

[Jenny1]

I don't know what power congress has re executive orders I'm afraid. I'm sure the will would be there to challenge among many Republicans as well as Democrats - but I don't know what the process would be.

[Loz]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ah ,yes that makes sense jenny .

>

> I wonder how the constitutional aspect could be

> challenged - congress agreeing to a judicial

> review ? Which would mean Republicans breaking

> ranks ? Which I guess it's a little early for ?

The US constitution is going to be very important over the next few months to keep Trump in line, but AFAIK the constitution offers no protection to non-US people, unless they are on US soil. So the judge can step in to deal with people being held at US airports, but cannot make any judgement on the wider policy.

[ianr]

There was this attempt, after a House of Representatives vote, to sue Obama in 2014 over Obamacare. I don't know its outcome but it seems to have been regarded as an oddball action: "Legal scholars have questioned whether any member of Congress can prove injury by the president and therefore prevail in court." https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/us/politics/house-votes-along-party-lines-to-sue-obama.html. The conventional Congressional remedy would seem to be counter-legislation. WikiP:ExecutiveOrder:Legal conflicts.

Current lawsuits are summarised in Wikipedia at Darweesh_v._Trump. The main article for the shemozzle seems to be Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.

[Jenny1]

That's very helpful ianr. So the case being currently brought by the American Civil Liberties Union is based on the fact that the executive order is in breach of a number of pieces of existing legislation including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. I'm no legal expert - but given what Trump has said the ACLU case appears unarguably strong, making the executive order illegal.

I wonder if the legal process will have to 'play out' or if Trump will be persuaded to climb down before that happens.

[Jenny1]

....I guess the other option is that Trump tries to get all the existing laws amended. Not sure how hard that would be and also not sure if it would 'count' - trying to make his actions legal retrospectively.

[Loz]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There was this attempt, after a House of Representatives vote, to sue Obama in 2014 over

> Obamacare. I don't know its outcome but it seems to have been regarded as an oddball action: "Legal

> scholars have questioned whether any member of Congress can prove injury by the president and

> therefore prevail in court."

A curious thing to say. They weren't suing on the basis of injury. They were suing on the basis he exceeded the executive powers. Incidentally, they won.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28554842

... which also has nice summary of the executive orders.

[malumbu]

Mo Farah and family are very welcome back in the UK. We would give them a nice homecoming, very unlike that Mr Trump shold he wish to move to Scotland.

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanks for the links ianr - as said ,v helpful .

and I'm glad to read this

"Prime Minister Theresa May has told her foreign secretary and home secretary to contact their US counterparts about a travel ban imposed by President Trump.

Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd will make representations about the order barring refugees and visa holders from seven Muslim majority countries for 90 days.

Earlier Mr Johnson tweeted it was "divisive and wrong" to stigmatise people on the basis of nationality."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38789821

[ianr]

> A curious thing to say. They weren't suing on the basis of injury. They were suing

> on the basis he exceeded the executive powers. Incidentally, they won.

In Judge Collyer's own words in her 12/5/16 judgment: "The House?s injury depends on the Constitution and not on the U.S. Code." The notion of justiciable injury seems to be deemed relevant. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv1967-73

The executive appeal against that judgment seems to be still pending. The latest I've found, http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/12/29/rapid-developments-in-house-v-burwell/, gets us to the beginning of this month.

There's an overview at wikip:United_States_House_of_Representatives_v._Burwell

[jaywalker]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks for the links ianr - as said ,v helpful .

>

> and I'm glad to read this

>

> "Prime Minister Theresa May has told her foreign

> secretary and home secretary to contact their US

> counterparts about a travel ban imposed by

> President Trump.

> Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd will make

> representations about the order barring refugees

> and visa holders from seven Muslim majority

> countries for 90 days.

> Earlier Mr Johnson tweeted it was "divisive and

> wrong" to stigmatise people on the basis of

> nationality."

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38789821

Good for her. Strangely, this is not what she said when asked for her own opinion in Turkey. But I guess that wisdom comes late in the day for us all.

[ianr]

A resulting Temporary Restraining Order, made in MA: https://twitter.com/joshua_eaton/status/825600563622604800.

[esme]

It basically seems to apply to everyone with certain nationalities or traveling from certain countries BUT after clarification was sought by our Foreign Secretary it does not appear to include British citizens with dual nationality or traveling from those countries on Trump's list (so a case of "we're okay").

Utter hateful nonsense.

[Mick Mac]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mo Farah and family are very welcome back in the

> UK. We would give them a nice homecoming,

As he moved away for tax reasons, I don't think we should welcome him at all.

[DaveR]

"As he moved away for tax reasons, I don't think we should welcome him at all."

I don't think that's right. He's been effectively living in the US for some time, and (as I understand) spends more than half the year there, and so is liable to US tax on all his income, wherever it arises. An easy way to avoid double taxation (at least on income arising in the UK) is to be non-resident in the UK, but that's just recognising the reality i.e. he is resident in the US.

[intexasatthe moment]

I've just read this https://www.justsecurity.org/36960/stock-weekends-district-court-orders-immigration-eo/ which details the legal challenges to date .

Whatever the status/constitutionality of this EO it does seem to have been administered in a way which left the officials on the ground confused as to how to implement the new policy . I wonder if Trump wanted maximum chaos to publicise his actions or if he simply didn't understand the need to consult and iron out the details before he tried to bring this in ?