Trump’s executive order limiting the entry of refugees and travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries was a victory for the religious right and conservatives.
As Vox reported, the order, signed by the president on February 28, prohibits refugees from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
The order has drawn ire from both liberal and conservative lawmakers, who argue that it is an unconstitutional, discriminatory, and discriminatory act that threatens religious liberty and freedoms.
As such, it is unlikely to be implemented, but a temporary restraining order (TRO) can prevent the administration from enforcing it indefinitely.
For this reason, it’s worth noting that TROs have not been used in the United States since the 1980s.
While the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, it has only issued rulings on the merits.
The TRO issue has been on the Supreme Courts radar for decades.
In 1996, then-Solicitor General John Yoo argued that the Constitution does not allow the courts to regulate religion.
In 2002, then Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that a TRO was unconstitutional, saying that the government has no business telling people what they can and cannot believe.
But with the recent election, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a series of rulings upholding TROs.
In 2016, the court struck down the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which required state governments to “promptly comply with a federal law that prohibits the practice of religion or exercise thereof.”
This year, the Trump administration announced that it would appeal the Supreme Supreme Court decision in a case that will eventually decide whether or not the Supreme is going to hear a case.
This case could come down on whether the Supreme will hear a challenge to the TRO order.
In the meantime, there are several other TROs on the books.
A TRO issued by the Ninth Circuit in April 2016 required California’s universities to provide students with “specific and meaningful accommodations” for “gender-based violence.”
The ruling states that, “[t]he student-athlete is entitled to a safe, comfortable, and free environment and that the university is obligated to respond to the student’s request for accommodation.”
In 2016 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District, which covers the southern portion of California, upheld a TROs in a separate case.
The court ruled that a state law banning transgender students from using bathrooms or locker rooms that match the gender with which they were born violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
A federal district court in December 2018 ordered the University of California to begin offering a “non-discriminatory accommodation” to transgender students who were denied the use of a restroom that corresponded to their gender identity.
The university has already begun the process of implementing this accommodation.
However, the case will likely be heard in the U,S.
Supreme Court.
In 2018, a federal judge in Texas issued a ruling that a federal TRO prohibiting the sale of guns and ammunition to illegal aliens was unconstitutional.
The ruling was issued after the Ninth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeal overturned a similar federal TRo in the case of People v.
Flores, which was about gun-control measures.
The appeals court found that the Flores ruling “is fundamentally at odds with the Second Amendment and the Second Commandment of the U.”
The court wrote that “the government may not require a person to acquire or possess a firearm for any purpose.”
The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the Flores case on June 19.
The Ninth Circuit Court upheld a similar TRO in 2018.
The decision, which also upheld a ban on the sale and possession of ammunition to people convicted of certain felonies, is currently being appealed by the Trump Department of Justice.
