Press Release  AG Healey Joins Coalition of 17 Attorneys General Opposing President Trump’s Revised Travel Ban

Boston — Today, Attorney General Maura Healey joined a coalition of 17 Attorneys General in filing amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing President Trump’s travel ban.

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

In the second brief filed today, the attorneys general oppose the Trump administration’s request to allow the ban to go into effect pending appeal.

“From the very beginning we have challenged President Trump’s discriminatory and unlawful travel ban, and today we are taking these arguments to the Supreme Court,” AG Healey said. “We will continue fight to uphold the rule of law against the President’s attempt to fulfill an unconstitutional campaign promise.”

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.

AG Healey previously filed suit against President Trump’s first travel ban in January and his revised travel ban in March. Today, the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction secured against the revised travel ban in a federal district court in Hawaii.

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

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 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 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.

###