Justices Hear Travel Ban Oral Arguments, Express Concern About Sham Waiver “Window Dressing” and Reference Brief Co-authored by Mehri & Skalet
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a challenge to the legality of President Trump’s third Travel Ban. During the argument, three Justices asked questions expressing deep skepticism about the functionality of the waiver “system” put into place by the ban.
During this discussion, an amicus brief authored by Mehri & Skalet, in conjunction with co-counsel Arnold & Porter and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, was explicitly referenced. Justice Breyer questioned Solicitor Francisco about whether the waiver system is “just window dressing” and referred to our Pars Equality brief. Picking up on this theme, Justice Sotomayor expressed similar concern, asking Solicitor Francisco, “what are you personally doing to represent to us that it is, in fact, a real waiver process?” Justice Ginsburg, too, asked about a specific case cited in our brief of a 10-year-old with cerebral palsy who had been denied a waiver and cannot enter the United States for medical treatment.
The amicus brief can be read here. The amicus brief is a continuation of advocacy in the Pars Equality Center et al v. Trump et al litigation in D.C. district court, in which three prominent Iranian American organizations and over 25 individuals have challenged President Trump’s first, second, and third Travel Bans.
You can learn more about the case at EndTheTravelBan.com