Attorney General Mark R. Herring and his team made the nation’s first arguments in federal district court on why President Donald Trump’s immigration ban should be stopped with a preliminary injunction.
Attorney General Herring made the case that President Trump’s ban on entry of lawful permanent residents and visa holders from seven majority Muslim nations constitutes an unlawful version of the “Muslim ban” that he proposed during the campaign.
The Commonwealth argued that the ban has harmed Virginia by violating the due process and equal protection rights of Virginia residents, as well as the establishment clause of the United States Constitution.
“President Trump’s ban was conceived in religious bigotry, utterly indifferent to the facts, and executed with no foresight, skill, or diligence,” said Attorney General Herring. “The record is clear. The words of President Trump himself and his closest advisors all indicate he wanted a religious ban that he could dress up just enough to make it look legal. We are asking the Court to see this ban for what it is. We presented considerable evidence that this ban is motivated by religious animus and undermines our national security, while the Administration failed to refute any of our evidence or enter a single piece of its own evidence to support its claims. I believe the Judge heard the facts fairly, and I think the facts and evidence are overwhelming that this ban is unlawful, unconstitutional, un-American and should be overturned.”
Today’s hearing was the first in the nation on a motion for a preliminary injunction. If Attorney General Herring is successful, the Court will issue a preliminary injunction that will last through trial, as opposed to a temporary restraining order that will soon expire.
The issuance of a preliminary injunction will indicate a likelihood that Virginia will succeed on the merits of its challenge.
Support AFP
Share
Contributors
