HOUSTON – Three immigration advocacy groups have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Trump Administration concerning the ban on travel for seven countries. Those groups are the American Immigration Council, the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project and the National Immigration Project. While there are currently six plaintiffs in the suit, there is the potential for additional plaintiffs to join in the lawsuit due to the fact that the suit is a class action.
The lawsuit, Ali v. Trump, was filed on Jan. 30, three days after President Donald Trump’s executive order was put into place. Three of the plaintiffs live in the United States and are either U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The other three plaintiffs of the suit are children of the first three plaintiffs. The children are currently in the countries named under Trump’s executive order. Despite having approved visas or having been approved to apply for visas, that executive order currently prevents those children from entering the United States.
“Although the executive order itself only claimed to ban ‘entry into the United States’ from people from the seven countries, in practice, administrative agencies have been applying it much more broadly. People with validly issued visas were barred from getting on flights to the United States and others planning to travel to the U.S. received notices telling them that their visas had been revoked,” Kristin Macleod-Ball, a lawyer with the National Immigration Project, told the Record.
The ban, covering seven countries where Islam is the religion of majority, prevented both immigration and travel to the United States.
Those seven countries are Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia.
The lawsuit will more than likely go beyond just enabling the plaintiffs to be reunited with their families. It will probably go to the extent of stopping Trump’s executive order and having it challenged in a higher court.
“We are working to make sure that ban is permanently blocked, so that people who are trying to rejoin their families in the United States can do so once they go through the rigorous system already in place,” said Macleod-Ball.
How high this lawsuit could go is unknown, but there is a slight possibility that if one of the circuit courts doesn’t block the ban that Ali v. Trump could be headed to the highest court in the country.
“While we can’t anticipate what will happen in the case; it could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Macleod-Ball.
The ban has also had a ripple effect at the state level, with states either having brought or joined lawsuits to halt the ban. Those states include Massachusetts, Minnesota, Washington and Hawaii. As of Feb. 3, a temporary restraining order was issued following the lawsuit filed by the state of Washington (State of Washington v. Trump), allowing immigrants with approved visas to travel to the U.S. and reunite with their families. Massachusetts also had a restraining order in place, but it was lifted by a judge last Sunday.
“Lawyers are working with their clients to re-book canceled flights and make sure that the airlines and CBP officers at the airports understand the court decision and allow their clients to enter the U.S.,” said Macleod-Ball.
It is too soon to tell what the long-term impact of this executive order will be, but one thing is certain – the current short-term impact hasn’t been positive.
“It cannot help us to be known as the nation with an unlawful and cruel ban on immigrants based on their nationality and on refugees from anywhere in the world,” said Macleod-Ball.
The legality of the Muslim ban is also in question due to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Also known as the Hart-Celler Act, this legislation protects immigrants from discrimination on the basis of country of origin, ethnicity and ancestry.