Federal courts around the country have issued emergency orders temporarily blocking the removal of refugees legally authorized to enter the United States, generating further confusion in the aftermath of President Donald Trump\u2019s executive order on immigration from countries with high instances of terrorism.
The first such order came Saturday when District Judge Ann Donnelly in the Eastern District of New York issued a stay that halted the removal of several hundred refugees trapped in airports around the country.
A challenge to the order was brought by two refugees from Iraq \u2014 Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi \u2014 who were held at JFK International Airport in New York, despite holding visas authorizing their entry into the United States. The pair also sought class certification to represent all migrants in similar situations.
The executive order the president issued Saturday did not make provision for hundreds of refugees with visas and green cards en route to the United States, confining Darweesh, Alshawi and others like them to legal limbo, as volunteer lawyers rushed to major airports to take on migrants as pro-bono clients.
Donnelly\u2019s order stayed the removal of dozens of refugees, though it does not appear to authorize their entry to the United States. (RELATED: Judge Grants Refugees Stay From Trump\u2019s Executive Order)
Similar orders came late on Saturday or early Sunday from federal courts in Massachusetts, Washington state, and Virginia.
Judge Allison Burroughs in the District of Massachusetts issued a ruling that temporarily enjoins the removal of refugees who are legally authorized to enter the U. S. Her ruling also requires Customs and Border Patrol officers to advise airlines servicing Logan International Airport in Boston that individuals affected by Trump\u2019s order will not be detained or removed solely on the basis of the order.
Late Saturday, Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia issued an order forbidding the removal of refugees detained at Dulles International Airport for seven days. The order also requires government officials to grant the refugees access to legal counsel.
California has also filed a challenge to Trump\u2019s order. The state claims the order violates the separation of powers doctrine because the president lack statutory authorization from Congress to create such a policy. They also claim the order infringes on the Constitution\u2019s Establishment Clause.
\u201cMr. Trump\u2019s Executive Order presents a proposed \u2018law\u2019 facially prohibiting entry of persons to the United States based of their adherence to religious beliefs shared in certain countries,\u201d California\u2019s filing reads. \u201cThe Executive Order is therefore facially unconstitutional and must be stricken as an infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.\u201d
The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement it will abide by all court orders, but insisted the president\u2019s order remains in place.
\u201cPresident Trump\u2019s Executive Orders remain in place \u2014 prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U. S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety,\u201d the statement said. \u201cNo foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.\u201d
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Send tips to [email protected] .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].<\/p>\n

\n

\nSimilarity rank: 27\n<\/div>\n

Sentiment rank: 0.5<\/div>\n

\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n