Trump legal battles causes progressive standstill


Trump legal battles causes progressive standstill

By Connor Carynski

President Donald Trump faces mass resistance to his agenda from citizens and U.S. politicians, as evidenced by the recent legal battle over his executive order travel ban. If the fight over the ban is an indication of things to come, the opposition to Trump’s vision of America is growing in strength and numbers and represents a broad-based coalition of feminists, labor unions, minorities, the  LGBT community, environmentalists and others.

But is this permanent state of conflict is good for the country?

Trump’s recent immigration plan—which restricts travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries—filled airport terminals with protesters who were against the detention of hundreds of immigrants, non-immigrants, refugees and even U.S. citizens and green card holders, as reported Feb. 6 by The Chronicle. 

Exactly one week after the travel ban was enacted on Feb. 3, U.S. District Judge James L. Robart in Seattle granted a temporary restraining order that revoked the ban on a national level, according to a Feb. 4 article from The Seattle Times. The judge found a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which states, “No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality or place of birth.” 

The Justice Department has defended the ban as a valid exercise of presidential powers and appealed Robart’s decision to the Ninth Circuit, which sustained the restraining order on Feb. 9, according to a Feb. 10 CNN article. 

Trump’s failed order is a political loss, although it was intended to send a message to his supporters about of his readiness to act on his campaign promise of a “Muslim ban.”The injunction was upheld by an appellate court but may yet fare U.S. Supreme Court review. If the higher court overturns them, his opposition will fight all the harder to thwart him at every turn.

More lawsuits are underway, including one that claims he has violated the emoluments clause because foreign diplomats are visiting his Washington D.C. hotel to obtain favor. Unless Trump wants to wage these sorts of battles throughout his entire term, he needs to be more willing to cooperate with the many groups that oppose him.

Trump has done much since his inauguration to antagonize his critics through his conflicts of interest, cabinet picks and executive orders. Factoring in his war on the media, it is small wonder that so many people do not want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But this rigidity, like Trump’s obstinacy, is unfortunate.

In a potential scenario in which he proposes something beneficial for the country, such as rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure or lowering the price of prescription drugs, his opponents should continue to be  skeptical but also open to the possibilities. 

Trump’s travel ban and his executive order to push forward the Dakota Access Pipeline after enormous protest is more than worthy of resistance, but so long as Trump remains president, fear and distrust should not stand in the way of progress.