SCOTUS permits partial enforcement of Trump's travel ban

Today's Brew covers an update on Trump's immigration executive order, our most recent fact check, and an update on the GA-6 race [View this email in your browser]( [Image]( [Facebook]( [Twitter]( [Image]( Court will arguments on the case in October On the final day of its October 2016 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned opinion permitting enforcement of Donald Trump's immigration executive order dated March 6, 2017. The court permitted the government to enforce the order against any foreign nationals except those "who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." The court further agreed to hear appeals from judgments of both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit related to the order. The appeals were consolidated, and arguments in the cases will be held in October of this year, during the first sitting of the court's new term. [Get the full story on President Trump's executive order]( [Map of countries impacted by immigration executive order]( The court's ruling came 111 days after the President rescinded and replaced his January 27 executive order. Let's quickly walk you through an abbreviated timeline of events. - January 27, 2017: President Donald Trump issues the first executive order impacting refugee admissions and immigrant and nonimmigrant travel from seven countries (six counties pictured above as Iraq was removed from this list in the March executive order). - February 3, 2017: U.S. District Judge James Robart rules in favor of Washington state in its suit against the executive order, issuing a temporary nationwide block prohibiting federal employees from enforcing the order. The U.S. Justice Department files an appeal the next day. - February 9, 2017: A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upholds the temporary block issued by U.S. District Judge James Robart. - February 16, 2017: The Justice Department files a brief with the Ninth Circuit stating it will not seek a review of the temporary block by a full panel of the court. - March 6, 2017: President Donald Trump issues a new executive order that rescinds and replaces the January 27 order. - March 7, 2017: Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin files a lawsuit against the executive order in federal district court, asking the judge to uphold the restraining order imposed on the previous executive order and apply it to the new one. - March 10, 2017: The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland filed a legal complaint in federal district court against the March 6 executive order. - March 15, 2017: U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson responds to Hawaii's suit by blocking implementation of the executive order's suspension of entry to the U.S. and of the refugee program with a nationwide temporary restraining order. - March 16, 2017: U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang responds to the ACLU's suit by blocking the portion of the executive order that would have prevented Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen nationals from entering the U.S. - March 30, 2017: Judge Derrick Watson converts the temporary restraining order he issued into an indefinite preliminary injunction. - May 25, 2017: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the injunction against the order issued by Judge Chuang. - June 12, 2017: A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the injunction against the order issued by Judge Watson. [January 27th executive order timeline]( → [March 6th executive order timeline]( → [Image] In testimony before a joint committee of the state legislature, Minnesota’s Chief Justice Lorie Gildea urged legislators to fully fund the court system’s budget request. "If our courts don’t have enough judges and qualified staff, our rising caseloads will delay access to justice for citizens and businesses all around Minnesota," she said. Do Minnesota courts face rising caseloads? [See what we found in the data]( → [Image] After the special election in Georgia's 6th Congressional District last week, members of Congress, party activists, and journalists examined the political strategies and external factors leading to Karen Handel (R)'s victory over Jon Ossoff (D). Frequently mentioned explanations for the election outcome included issues with Ossoff as a candidate, the influence of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), ineffective messaging, and inefficient voter contact efforts. [Political analysis of the GA-6 outcome]( → [Des Moines survey]( Ballotpedia depends on the support of our readers. The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns. [Donate Securely Online]( Decide which emails you receive from Ballotpedia. [Unsubscribe or adjust your preference]( [Facebook]( [Twitter](