1 DOCUMENTATION: EMERGENCY RESOLUTION ON TRAVEL “MUSLIM BAN” LIST OF ARTICLES – FOLLOWED BY FULL TEXT Liptak, Adam (24 Oct. 2017). Supreme Court Wipes Out Travel Ban Appeal. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban-appeal- trump.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article Liptak, Adam. (4 Dec. 2017). Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court.html?_r=0 Goldman, Adam, and Fandos, Nicholas (29 Nov. 2017). Lawmakers Confront F.B.I. Director Over Report on Black Extremists. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/us/politics/fbi-black-identity-extremist-report.html Rosenthal, Andrew. (19 Oct. 2017). Op. Ed. The F.B.I.’s Black Phantom Menace. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/opinion/columnists/fbi-blacks-civil-rights.html Saleh, Maryam. (7 Dec. 2017). The Intercept. At https://theintercept.com/2017/12/07/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-muslims- national-security/ Baker, Peter, and Sullivan, Eileen (29 Nov. 2017). Trump Shares Inflammatory Anti-Muslim Videos, and Britain’s Leader Condemns Them. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/us/politics/trump-anti-muslim-videos-jayda-fransen.html Saul, Stephanie (2 Jan. 2018). As Flow of Foreign Students Wanes, U.S. Universities Feel the Sting. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/us/international-enrollment-drop.html?_r=0 Murphy, Michael J. (18 July 2017). Commentary. Growth of xenophobia in U.S. drives talent to other lands. At http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/Growth-of-xenophobia-in-U-S-drives-talent-to-11297857.php Llorente, Elizabeth (10 October 2017). FBI cites black extremists as new domestic terrorist threat. Fox News. At http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/10/fbi-cites-black-extremists-as-new-domestic-terrorist-threat.html DeYoung, Karen, and Miroff, Nick. (21 Nov. 2017). Trump administration to end provisional residency protection for 60,000 Haitians. The Washington Post. At https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-end- provisional-residency-protection-for-50000-haitians/2017/11/20/fa3fdd86-ce4a-11e7-9d3a- bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.61d201320907 #13 Right-Wing Money Promotes Model Legislation to Restrict Free Speech on University Campuses. (4 October 2017). ProjectCensored. At http://projectcensored.org/13-right-wing-money-promotes-model-legislation-restrict-free-speech-university- campuses/ Is the U.S. Exporting Its Travel Ban with Thousand of TSA & DHS Agents in 70 Countries? (29 Dec. 2017). Democracy Now. At https://www.democracynow.org/2017/12/29/is_the_us_exporting_its_travel Media Focus on Muslims After Attack in NY Even as NYPD Says Islam Played No Role. (2 Nov. 2017). Democracy Now. At https://www.democracynow.org/2017/11/2/trump_media_focus_on_muslims_after Mullen, Jethro . (15 Dec. 2017). Trump to propose ending rule allowing spouses of H-1B holders to work in U.S. CNN Money. At http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/15/technology/h1b-visa-spouses-h4-trump/index.html ++++++++++++ DOCUMENTATION – FULL TEXT OF ARTICLES (AS LISTED ABOVE) Liptak, Adam (24 Oct. 2017). Supreme Court Wipes Out Travel Ban Appeal. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban-appeal- trump.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article Supreme Court Wipes Out Travel Ban Appeal The Supreme Court dismissed on Tuesday the last remaining appeal in a pair of cases challenging President Trump’s executive order, issued in March, that sought to limit travel to the United States. The March order was replaced in September with broader restrictions, and they have already been blocked by federal district courts in Hawaiiand Maryland. Tuesday’s dismissal mostly amounted to judicial housekeeping, clearing out challenges to the March order as the justices await eventual appeals from the one issued in September. 2 In its brief, unsigned disposition, the court said the March order had expired, making the case moot. “We express no view on the merits,” the court said. But the Supreme Court did a little more than simply remove the case from its docket. It also vacated the decision under appeal, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, meaning it cannot be used as a precedent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, saying that she would have simply dismissed the case and allowed the appeals court decision to remain on the books. The Ninth Circuit ruled in June that Mr. Trump had exceeded his statutory authority in limiting travel from six mostly Muslim countries and suspending the nation’s refugee program. Erasing that precedent may have implications for the new challenge to the September order. Last week, in blocking the new order, Judge Derrick K. Watson, of the Federal District Court in Honolulu, relied heavily on the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The September order, Judge Watson found, “plainly discriminates based on nationality in the manner that the Ninth Circuit has found antithetical to both” a federal immigration law and “the founding principles of this nation.” The administration may seek to revisit Judge Watson’s ruling now that the Ninth Circuit’s decision has been vacated. In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from both the Ninth Circuit’s decision and one from the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. The Fourth Circuit had also ruled against the administration but on different grounds, saying that the March order violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in discriminating based on religion. Over the summer, the two sides continued to tangle in court over what aspects of the March order could be enforced in the meantime. In its June order, the Supreme Court said that people with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” could continue to enter the country. In rulings issued in July and September, the justices upheld broad restrictions against refugees entering the United States but allowed grandparents and other relatives of American residents to travel here. The administration’s issuance of the September order prompted the justices to cancel oral arguments in the two cases, which had been scheduled for Oct. 10, and to ask the parties for briefs on whether the cases were moot. The administration said they were, and it urged the court to vacate the appeals court decisions. The challengers asked the justices to hear the appeals and to leave the appeals court decisions in place if they decided to dismiss them. On Oct. 10 — the day the arguments were to have been heard — the court dismissed the administration’s appeal from the Fourth Circuit’s ruling and vacated the appeals court’s decision. Justice Sotomayor dissented from that ruling, too, saying that she would have simply dismissed the case without wiping out the appeals court’s ruling. The Supreme Court did not take immediate action on the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Oct. 10, presumably because the decision was broader, addressing both limits on travel from six nations and the refugee program. The September order concerned only travel restrictions, from a similar set of countries, and not the refugee program. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Liptak, Adam. (4 Dec. 2017). Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect. The New York Times. At https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court.html?_r=0 Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the third version of the Trump administration’s travel ban to go into effect while legal challenges against it continue. The decision was a victory for the administration after its mixed success before the court over the summer, when justices considered and eventually dismissed disputes over the second version. The court’s brief, unsigned orders on Monday urged appeals courts to move swiftly to determine whether the latest ban was lawful. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the administration’s request to allow the latest ban to go into effect. The court’s orders mean that the administration can fully enforce its new restrictions on travel from eight nations, six of them predominantly Muslim. For now, most citizens of Iran, Libya, 3 Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea will be barred from entering the United States, along with some groups of people from Venezuela. The restrictions vary in their details, but in most cases, citizens of the countries will be unable to emigrate to the United States permanently and many will be barred from working, studying or vacationing here. Iran, for example, will still be able to send its citizens on student exchanges, though such visitors will be subject to enhanced screening. Somalis will no longer be allowed to emigrate to the United States, but may visit with extra screening. The Supreme Court’s orders effectively overturned a compromise in place since June, when the court said travelers with connections to the United States could continue to travel here notwithstanding restrictions in an earlier version of the ban. The orders gave no reasons for the court’s shift. The move did suggest that the administration’s chances of prevailing at the Supreme Court when the justices consider the lawfulness of the latest ban have markedly increased. Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the order “a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people.” A spokesman for the White House, Hogan Gidley, said, “We are not surprised by today’s Supreme Court decision,” calling it “lawful and essential to protecting our homeland.” The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents people and groups challenging the ban, said it would continue to argue against the ban as challenges against it in lower appeals courts proceed.