To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
On February 13, 2017, a federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, issued a preliminary injunction against parts of the Trump administration’s executive order (EO) barring entry of nationals from seven predominately-Muslim countries into the United States. The injunction only applies to Virginia residents, Virginia students, and employees of Virginia schools. Rejecting the government’s argument that the ban was not religiously motivated, the opinion stated that “[t]he Commonwealth has produced unrebutted evidence supporting its position that it is likely to succeed on an Establishment Clause claim. The ‘Muslim ban’ was a centerpiece of the president's campaign for months, and the press release calling for it was still available on his website as of the day this Memorandum Opinion is being entered.” The ruling went further than the parallel proceedings on the matter in other courts, particularly because a preliminary injunction requires a higher standard of proof than a temporary restraining order. The ruling concluded with the judge’s assessment “that there is a likelihood the Commonwealth will prevail on the merits of its Establishment Clause claim.” This ruling follows a Seattle judge issuing a temporary restraining order that was upheld on review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.