Talk:Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Monday Night Massacre[edit]

Discussion resulted in consensus concerning inclusion of a brief mention of this topic in this article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources for this please. ...Leading to what will be known as The Monday Night Massacre in light of how similar it is to Richard M. Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre... Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain this WP:NEOLOGISM belongs in this article. Let's talk about it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the article on this is here to stay, added as a link from article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a {{merge to|Monday Night Massacre}} to the Acting Attorney General statement and firing section, because it's mostly off topic here (=lawsuits). One statement with a wikilink in the background section here should be good enough, and editors on Monday Night Massacre could then sort out the excessive citations there. –2A03:2267:0:0:F94F:626A:7BC1:BC31 (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's notable for this article to have a short summary of this topic because it is related to the subject of the article. There is no official merge discussion on the talk page. If you feel strongly about it, then ask for a straw poll on this topic. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple {{merge to}}, it has a discuss link. As soon as a logged in user thinks that's there's no consensus to change anything they can add a {{not done}} in the Talk:Monday Night Massacre#Acting_Attorney_General_statement_and_firing section and remove the {{merge to}} line here. –2A03:2267:0:0:481C:F121:DBB0:57D2 (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took your recommendation and closed the discussion since the consensus was to allow brief mention of the Monday Night Massacre in this article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 1 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Currently, the article is about legal challenged to EO13769. Consensus shows that the legal challenges against EO13769 is notable enough for its own article, and shouldn't cover all lawsuits against Trump's entire immigration policy. Consensus shows that the current title is too broad for four (or more) years of policy, and that info about other Executive Orders can be moved elsewhere. Furthermore, there appears to be a small consensus (among those who have mentioned it) that an umbrella page at Legal challenges to the immigration policies of Donald Trump or otherwise the current (former) title can be created later and would cover this and any other legal challenges to other future Executive Orders related to Trump's immigration policy, some of which may become notable in their own right. As of now, though, the main consensus is that this page should only be about the legal challenges to Executive Order 13769, and thus the article will be moved because of that. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 01:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits against the immigration policy of Donald Trump → Legal challenges to Executive Order 13769 –

The current title is imprecise, and is both too broad and too narrow:

  • It is too broad in the sense that the challenges described are all to this executive order, not to "Trump's immigration policy" generally.
  • It is simultaneously too narrow, because not every legal challenge comes in the form of a lawsuit. For example, Sally Yates has challenged the legislation's constitutionality, but not through a lawsuit. Similarly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights contends that the order implicates human rights law. Scholars also are likely to write articles either questioning or defending the legality of the executive order. These topics are "legal challenges" but are not lawsuits.

The proposed title also has the advantage of being shorter and consistent with our precedent (see Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). Neutralitytalk 00:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - If we have a precedent, we should follow it. The old title is less precise than what is being proposed. Also, from what I have observed of our illustrious President, this is not likely to be the first or last time one of his orders results in massive litigation. It's probably better to be as precise as we can so the deluge of lawsuits get grouped with the right executive order. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support MarkiPoli (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, agree with "lawsuits", but counter-propose Legal challenges to the immigration policies of Donald Trump which solves both of the problems in the proposal and leaves the needed umbrella article open for expansion during the next four years. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could always expand the article and title as necessary. I don't think we need to preemptively do it. Neutralitytalk 21:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support right away. The proposed title represents a narrower scope of the article. The current title can become a redirect and be re-created at another time but at a broader scope. George Ho (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After a few days, the article is clearly focused on reactions to EO 13769, not on the broader immigration and border control policy (it wasn't obvious earlier), and "legal challenges" is broader than just "lawsuits" so I support the OP's rationale to rename. — JFG talk 02:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presently Oppose - The San Francisco Lawsuit challenges EO 13768, not EO 13769. I believe the section should be transferred or blanked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with page modification - San Francisco vs. Trump, as said above, challenges 13768, so something needs to be done about that, but the current title is overbroad, as it's almost entirely about EO 13769, not general policy. Wmadaus (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: FYI, commons has c:category:Court documents related to EO 13769. 2A03:2267:0:0:6552:2BED:BD78:2237 (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi. I had been originally in favour of the move, but as I started thinking about the changes that would be needed (e.g. moving San Francisco vs. Trump, as Wmadaus points out), I realised that there would likely need to be an umbrella article for the legal challenges overall; this article already serves that purpose, so keeping it is a better alternative to splitting it up and then having to make a new umbrella article with much of the same content. I feel that Legal challenges to the immigration policies of Donald Trump deals with this, while still allowing scope for sections of the article to be split out as they reach an appropriate size. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are so many challenges to this one executive order that it deserves its own article. It could potentially be a subarticle of a broader Legal challenges to the immigration policies of Donald Trump article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Assuming Trump intends on signing more executive orders regarding immigration, this article will get longer. This article should be exclusively reserved for the EO only. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi and Sasuke Sarutobi. Support: Legal challenges to the immigration policies of Donald Trump. Greggydude (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, @Octoberwoodland, @George Ho, @Antony-22, and @Callmemirela. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move request per Wikipedia:NPOVTITLE. Burt Harris (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Antony-22, Octoberwoodland, JFG, and Callmemirela. The legal challenges for EO13769 have grown in number and breadth to support its own article. Similarly, if the EO13768 (or any other immigration policy) challenge grows in informational volume, it could be considered for its own. Concur with Antony-22 in that we could (should?) have a parent page to umbrella the EO13768 and EO13769 challenge summaries along with other immigration policy challenges as they evolve or arise during his tenure as President. Cariboukid (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and since the executive page had been moved to Executive Order 13769 it should comply with it. NgYShung huh? 13:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The stuff about 13768 can easily be moved elsewhere.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support EO13769 is what is noteworthy. But there is a strong indication that State of Washington v. Trump will soon have its own page. ZaynfromNY (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Caveat: the broader category would be Legal Proceedings. Andage01 (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The title is too broad given there will be 4 years of different policies. Also, the new approach would support the likelihood that eventually the Supreme Court will rule at once on all lawsuits tied to this Executive Order, at which point separate articles on each lawsuit would likely be combined here. Netrogeractor (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current title is too broad and sounds unprofessional. Warren Dew (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per George Ho, JFG -- CatapultTalks (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. The current title is odd, given that 1. no-one really knows his immigration policy and 2. the lawsuits pertain to a specific order, not his overall policy. Who's going to be BOLD and close? |→ Spaully τ  20:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested sources[edit]

I added the above header and turned the below four headers into subheaders. George Ho (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Mohammed v. United States" section[edit]

@Jhawkinson: Is the infobox needed for the section? It's pushing out another infobox below and an image. By the way, I tried finding sources to expand the article but could not find one that substantially covers the court case. --George Ho (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

shrug, I think there's plenty of material that should be added to that section, but feel free to move the full title out of the infobox into the section proper in the interim. I have't' had time to distill sources into the article text, but I think Josh Gerstein / Politico had some coverage. Or Chris Geidner / Buzzfeed. (or both?) jhawkinson (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco v. Trump[edit]

I notice that someone has removed this lawsuit from this article. Where did the content get moved to? Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI[edit]

I was just looking at Google News to see what was going on in the world. The top item was about the travel ban being stopped and the appeal. The fourth item Google News listed, right after news stories from the Washington Times, The Seattle Times, and Politico, was... a link to this article! You guys are obviously doing things right, and the world is coming here to find out what is going on. Keep up the good work! --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota?[edit]

In the "proceedings of the ninth circuit court" section it talks about Hawaii wanting to join in support of Washington and Missesota, and a group of former intelligence officials filing a declaration in support of Washington and Minnesota. I had also heard, in news reports, the lawsuit described as being brought by Washington and Minnesota. But the intro and the first couple of sections of that part of the article don't say anything about Minnesota or describe what its role is. I'll leave this up to those of you who have been following these cases so thoroughly (particularly User:Octoberwoodland), but maybe you could put something into the early part of that case to explain what Minnesota's role is. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Neutrality too. --MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN: Washington and Minnesota are plaintiffs (see here). Washington was the only plaintiff in the original complaint. Minnesota was added in the amended complaint. See here: "The amended complaint filed late Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, adds the State of Minnesota as a plaintiff..."
Hawaii has filed a motion to intervene. The rest of the states are simply amici. Neutralitytalk 03:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding this to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the section title to reflect this but I'll need some help updating the rest to reflect Minnesota a part of it.War (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues with constantly changing the style of the cases (John v Jane, etc.) in the headings is it breaks all of the redirects pointing to these cases. I have had to fix them several times. If someone changes the style of a case, then please go to "what links here" and fix the redirects at the same time. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most court cases just reference the first named litigant anyway, no need to keep adding them. We should leave the subtitles of each suit to just name the first litigant, then you can add the others parties down in the text to expand on the case style. In litigation, "A v. B" is referred to as "the style of the case". This will make it easier to maintain the article so we don't have to go back and constantly fix redirects which point to these cases. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^.^b, e.g. Linda Sarsour, more about it in MOS:LAW. I gave up when I reached the Bluebook fine print about stylistic differences per court. –2A03:2267:0:0:5535:3CA8:BFE6:19FB (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

The main article for this page used to be Executive Order 13769. Now the page says Immigration policy of Donald Trump, is that as it should be, skipping the EO and going directly to the policy? Another nit, the structure of the page is now much better, maybe you could move the DHS statement (January 29) actually belonging to two January 28 cases (Aziz+Darweesh, not only Darweesh) further up to the background section, or simply remove it, IMHO some DHS confusion on one day in January 2017 needs no huge blockquote on this page, boss sent a memo to preserve documents isn't relevant, it's business as usual, one sentence on an ABC News timeline.[22] –2A03:2267:0:0:8983:AF06:CC88:6096 (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and title of this article[edit]

I am puzzled and frustrated by this article. It seems to limit its scope to Executive Order 13769, as the title implies, and it barely mentions the second (and current) order #13780. There is one sentence in the lede and one paragraph about the state of Washington amending its complaint; everything else (including the title) is still about order #13769. This doesn't even mention the court orders blocking #13780. So it isn't clear to the reader where the case now stands, or where in Wikipedia to look for information about challenges to the revised travel ban.

Should we combine the legal challenges to the two orders into this article and give it an inclusive title? (Legal challenges to Trump travel orders?) Or should we start a second (and heavily duplicative) article called Legal Challenges to Executive Order 13780? Those challenges and court orders are spelled out to some extent in the article Executive Order 13780, but we seem to have established a precedent of putting the details into a dedicated Legal Challenges article.

Is there anyone (User:Octoberwoodland? User:JFG? User:Neutrality?) who has the time and expertise to either update and modify this article so it is current, or start a new one if that is the decision?

Looking a little further I see it isn't just this article: it's also Reactions to Executive Order 13769, Protests against Executive Order 13769, and List of protests against Executive Order 13769. And then there's Category:Executive Order 13769. We need to reach a decision involving the scope and title of all these articles. I will post on their talk pages and ask them to come here to discuss. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these should all be renamed/combined into a single article covering both executive orders, e.g., Legal challenges to Executive Orders 13769 and 13780). The harder part will be updating this initial article (this is often a problem - Wikipedia often has heavy coverage of an initial event, but little coverage of the process that follows/outcome. Neutralitytalk 21:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that's the kind of mess we get when enthusiastic editors follow all the minutiae of the daily news and then lose interest, jumping to the next hot story (EEng, sounds familiar? another case in point for your moratorium idea). This subject should be condensed and summarized into one well-structured article about the travel ban saga. If it ends up too long for a single article, I would suggest keeping one about the orders themselves and the legal processes, another one about the background, analysis, reactions, protests and whatnot. Pinging Anythingyouwant who made some well-informed remarks about the legal details recently; he may have a good grasp on where things are standing. — JFG talk 21:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the last day of the SCOTUS term is tomorrow, so let's see what happens. Will SCOTUS lift the temporary injunction on the travel ban? Will one of the nine judges announce retirement? Stay tuned. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, this article was created as a spinoff from Executive Order 13769 and it was massive at the time. I think it could probably be trimmed somewhat, but I don't think re-merging it all is a viable idea. I think we need to keep the two separate Executive Order articles and I am not proposing to include them in this discussion. I am just talking about the scope and titles of the spinoff articles. We very commonly have "Legal challenges" articles separate because they get into such minutiae; it may be that the "reactions", "protests", and "lists of protests" articles can now (with the wisdom of hindsight) be merged into a single article such as you suggest. Before we propose that, let's decide what kind of title we are going to use for this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: If the articles about the EOs themselves are too long, I agree with merging just the legal challenges to both EOs into one article. Looks like you've gone ahead, well done! Now the page about Executive Order 13780 currently has lots of details on legal challenges: that should be trimmed and merged here. Then perhaps consider merging EO 13780 into EO 13769 as well? — JFG talk 14:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Neutrality on this. These executive orders are essentially one and the same, so covering both orders in the spinoffs (i.e. reactions) in one article each would make sense. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with User:Neutrality and concur with his proposed title. We REALLY need to get this done, since the Supreme Court made news on the subject today, overturning some of the stays and allowing parts of the ban to go into effect. Are we in sufficient agreement here to go ahead and change the title of this article now? while awaiting more input on the titles of the other spinoff articles? --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on Protests against..., but my comment there is pertinent to this discussion, too. What I wrote that applies here is: "I'm not a lawyer, but if legal challenges are specific to the orders themselves (which they seem to be) then I suspect those should remain separate." If I was looking for legal challenges, I would want them to specifically address the particular EO on separate pages. As for protests against the EOs, I think those can be safely grouped together. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Proclamation 9645 superseded the two executive orders, and has been challenged in court, successfully so far according to district court decisions in Hawai‘i and Maryland. Anyway, the title of this article is now obsolete. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing scope of overview of cases[edit]

What is criteria to add cases to Legal_challenges_to_the_Trump_travel_ban#Overview_of_cases ? I see for example Trump v. Hawaii, Arab American Civil Rights League (ACRL) v. Trump and International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump are missing. Is this intentional? Shushugah (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are all in the article. Trump v. Hawaii is here but it is called Hawaii v. Trump. (A lot of sources call it that but SCOTUS calls it Trump v. Hawaii.) International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump is here. ARCL v. Trump is here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I Mean inside the chart at the top of Legal_challenges_to_the_Trump_travel_ban#Overview_of_cases which doesn't mention any of the cases I mentioned. In the body, they are mentioned hence my confusion. Shushugah (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_challenges_to_the_Trump_travel_ban&oldid=1197229384"