Executive Order Violation Essay

In this portion of the case, we are focused on the reasons for the United States District Court's decision to deny the emergency motion for a stay brought by the United States government. The motion in question was in response to the enforcement of a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed together by Washington and Minnesota; or collectively, "the States".
The TRO restricts the enforcement of President Trump's executive order widely known as the "Travel Ban" or "Muslim Ban". The executive order bans individuals from seven countries entry to the U.S.A. for 90 days, suspends the refugee program for 120 days and suspends Syrian refugees indefinitely. The order also states that exceptions may be made in some cases "when in the national interest". However, it does not provide any explanation as to what qualifies as being in the national interest, or who evaluates the cases. The order goes on to direct that when the refugee program resumes operation, refugees of certain religions would have prioritized applications. The government insisted that the bans were a matter of protecting the nation from terrorism. The bans were put into place immediately, causing a widespread and very controversial effect.
In their case, the States were granted standing on the basis that their public universities had suffered damages due to the effect of the order.
The fifth amendment had been violated by not showing any due process in the order. No notice was given to those affected, and there was no opportunity for any hearings prior to restricting citizens' ability to travel. To support that the first amendment had been violated, the States provided statements made by the President during his campaign about his intent to enact a "Muslim Ban". They argued that the executive order was in fact aimed at the Muslim religion, rather than being in the interest of national