Press Releases

 

Attorney General Peter Kilmartin Joins Attorneys General in Filing SCOTUS Briefs Opposing Trump Immigration Ban

Earlier Today, Yet Another Court Upheld Another Injunction Against Immigration Ban

Today, Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin joined a coalition of 17 attorneys general in filing amicus briefs with the Supreme Court of the United States opposing President Trump's immigration ban.

The case IRAP v. Trump was originally brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC). In March, a federal court in Maryland blocked key parts of President Trump's immigration ban; last month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the suspension of the ban.

Attorneys general have also directly filed suit against President Trump's first and second immigration bans. Just today, the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction secured against the immigration ban in March in a federal district court in Hawaii.

In the first brief filed today, the attorneys general oppose the Trump administration's petition for certiorari, arguing that the preliminary injunction against the immigration ban should be maintained and the Supreme Court should not review the decision at this point.

"When the Trump administration issued its first travel ban through Executive Order, I pledged to fight the unconstitutional measure," said Attorney General Kilmartin. "In each legal action we have taken, the Courts have sided with our arguments, found in favor of the rule of law of this country and blocked the travel ban. While today's decision from the Ninth Circuit was a victory, the legal battle will continue, and just as it does, we will continue to work together as these matters move through the Courts."

In the second brief filed today, authored by Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, and joined by Attorney General Kilmartin and 14 other states, the attorneys general oppose the Trump administration's request to allow the ban to go into effect pending appeal.

The two briefs were filed by a total of 17 Attorneys General, including New York, Virginia, Maryland, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

In opposing the Trump administration's petition for certiorari and stay request, the states explain that allowing the ban to take effect would harm their people, institutions, and economies, including by inhibiting the free exchange of information, ideas, and talent between the six designated countries and the amici States, including at the States' many educational institutions; disrupting the provision of medical care at the States' hospitals; harming the life sciences, technology, health care, finance, and tourism industries, as well as innumerable other small and large businesses throughout the States; inflicting economic damage on the States themselves through both increased costs and immediately diminished tax revenues; and hindering the States from effectuating the policies of religious tolerance and nondiscrimination enshrined in our laws and our state constitutions.

The States also argue that this is not the right time for the Supreme Court to hear this case, because the travel ban calls for its own imminent modification, making review at this juncture premature. The Court should follow its usual practice of awaiting a fully-developed record that is better suited to Supreme Court review.

Related links

Share this: