Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States.

[1][2] The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

[3] Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

[16][17][18] Further, the order suspended the entry of alien nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – for 90 days, after which an updated list will be made.

[32] A variety of legal arguments—both constitutional and statutory—have been raised by the challengers to the executive order, including the states of Washington and Minnesota,[34] the American Civil Liberties Union,[35] and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

But a different provision enacted under an amendment in 1965 establishes that, "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, place of birth, or place of residence"[38][40] This non-discrimination clause is one basis for the legal challenges under the argument that while the President was given broad powers in 1952, such powers were eventually limited in 1965.

"[46] Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that immigrants—including non-citizens and permanent residents—have rights to due process and equal protection, but only if they are physically present in the United States.

"[35][38] David D. Cole, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center that serves as national legal director for the ACLU, stated that, "The executive order, of course, does not say in express terms that it is favoring Christians and disfavoring Muslims.

[62] On February 9, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the federal government's request for a stay upholding the temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement.

[72] The Court subsequently issued an order directing the United States to file a response to the emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction by March 14, 2017.

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito wrote that the preliminary injunction to the executive order by lower courts was incorrect in its entirety.

[83] On the day Trump signed the executive order, January 27, 2017, 50–60 individuals at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The Court stated in its order that Customs officials "... shall permit lawyers access to all legal permanent residents being detained at Dulles International Airport ..." and that Customs officers "... are forbidden from removing plaintiffs ... lawful permanent residents at Dulles International Airport for a period of 7 days from the issuance of this Order."

[86] On January 28, 2017, the United States Customs and Border Protection agency ("CBP") and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority ("MWAA") defied a court order issued that evening by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia requiring that attorneys be granted access to travelers at Dulles Airport detained by CBP agents.

[87][88] On February 1, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia moved to intervene in the lawsuit and filed a motion to show cause as to why the respondents should not be held in contempt of court.

The amended complaint further details the circumstances surrounding the Aziz brothers' detainment and treatment and asks for the US Government to allow everyone deported from Dulles as a result of Trump's executive order to return to the US and have their immigration status restored.

[94][95] On the day Trump signed the executive order, Hameed Darweesh and Haider Alshawi landed at John F. Kennedy International Airport and were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

[96] On January 28, 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a civil action against President Trump, alleging that enforcement officials' actions, pursuant to the executive order barring citizens of specific countries from entry into the United States, are in violation of procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965; The Convention Against Torture; the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998; and the Administrative Procedure Act by denying foreign nationals who possess validly issued visas the right to enter the United States.

Plaintiffs also allege that the executive order itself "discriminates against Petitioners on the basis of their country of origin and religion, and without sufficient justification, and therefore violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Additionally, the EO was substantially motivated by animus toward—and has a disparate effect on—Muslims, which also violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment".

We are also working closely with airline partners to prevent travelers who would not be granted entry under the executive orders from boarding international flights to the U.S.

As Secretary Kelly previously stated, in applying the provisions of the president's executive order, the entry of lawful permanent residents is in the national interest.

Accordingly, absent significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.

[108] On the day Trump signed the executive order, Plaintiffs at Logan International Airport in Boston were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

[109][110] They had flown from Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris back to Massachusetts after finishing a weeklong conference on sustainable engineering held in Marseille.

[110] After being detained, Tootkaboni and Louhghalam, represented by Susan Church Boston judges temporarily block Trump edict on immigration - The Boston Globe of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and Matt Segal of the ACLU of Massachusetts,[110] filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

[114][115][116] On January 30, 2017, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, held a news conference in Washington, D.C. and announced the filing of a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of individuals challenging the constitutionality of President Trump's recent executive order.

Judge Chuang noted that the statute does not prohibit the President from barring entry into the United States or the issuance of non-immigrant visas on the basis of nationality.

[147][148] On May 25, the Fourth Circuit upheld the March ruling of the Maryland district court, continuing the block of the travel ban by a vote of 10-3 because it violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

Hawaii's outside counsel in a related case, Neal Katyal, told the Court he was "in Utah with very little internet access" for the rest of the week, so it granted him an extra day to file the state's response brief.