CT Attorney General Joins Resistance to President Trump's Immigration Executive Order

Stressing that he believes President Donald Trump "exceeded his constitutional authority," Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen joined with 15 other attorneys general this week in opposing Trump's executive order barring individuals from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.

Jepsen and the other attorneys general are asking a federal appeals court to leave in place a temporary restraining order issued by the federal District Court in Seattle that has halted the order.

Connecticut's two U.S. Senators, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, also have publicly opposed the executive order, as has Gov. Dannel Malloy.

In the amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Monday, the attorneys general argue that a stay of the District Court's order would cause concrete, immediate and irreparable harms to the states, notably their colleges and universities, medical institutions and tax revenues; and would harm the ability of states to ensure the health, welfare and civil rights of their residents.

"We believe that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority in issuing this executive order," said Attorney General Jepsen in a statement. "The state of Connecticut and, indeed, states across our country cannot and should not have to bear the confusion, cost and economic loss caused by this unconstitutional executive order. We are asking the court today to uphold the restraining order obtained by the Washington and Minnesota attorneys general late last week and to allow individuals from these seven countries – who already face significant vetting procedures prior to the granting of access to the United States – to continue to travel on their properly issued visas while this case is further litigated."

In addition to Jepsen, the attorneys general from the following states also signed onto the brief: California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

The brief argues, in part:

The states have already been harmed by this executive order and the federal government's shifting implementation of it. The District Court's temporary restraining order returned the policies and procedures regarding travel to the United States to the status quo that existed before the executive order…If this court were to grant a stay at this juncture it would resurrect the chaos experienced in our airports beginning on the weekend of January 28 and 29, and cause harm to the states – including state institutions such public universities, to the businesses that sustain our economies, and to our residents.

In the brief, the states cite specific examples where public universities, hospitals and medical institutions that rely on medical residents to provide care to the most vulnerable populations have already felt the impact of the executive order.

Additionally, the states further argue that the executive order "has already caused and would continue to cause untold economic damage to local economies in the form of diminished tax revenues from loss of tourism and loss of business investment."

Jepsen is consulting closely with Gov. Malloy, state officials and others to evaluate the consequences of the executive order for Connecticut and any additional legal options that may be available and appropriate.

Click here to view a copy of the multistate amicus brief.

Image via Shutterstock