U.S. officials can at least temporarily continue to block refugees with formal assurances from resettlement agencies from entering the United States after the Supreme Court intervened again Monday to save a piece of President Trump’s travel ban.
Responding to an emergency request from the Justice Department, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy stopped an earlier federal appeals court ruling that had allowed refugees with a formal assurance to enter the country.
Kennedy, who handles cases on an emergency basis from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, ordered those suing over the ban to respond by noon Tuesday, and he indicated that the appeals court ruling in their favor would be stayed “pending receipt” of their response.
The Supreme Court’s decision came not long after the Justice Department asked the justices to act. That filing, by Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall, demonstrated the lengths to which the government is willing to go to impose its desired version of the ban, even before the high court takes up in earnest next month whether the measure is lawful at its core. At issue is whether the president can block a group of about 24,000 refugees with assurances from entering the United States after the Supreme Court decided in June to permit a limited version of his travel ban to take effect.
Since Trump signed his first travel ban shortly after taking office, the directive has been mired in a complicated legal battle.
The president ultimately revoked the first ban — which blocked refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States — and replaced it with a less onerous version that blocked refugees and citizens of six of the initial seven countries. The Supreme Court ultimately decided Trump could impose that measure, but not on those with a “bona fide” connection to the United States, such as having family members here, a job or a place in a U.S. university.
It is the interpretation of a “bona fide” connection to the United States that is being debated. The government initially sought to block grandparents and other extended family members of people in the United States from entering — as well as refugees with formal assurances — though a federal district judge stopped from doing so. The Supreme Court in July largely upheld that ruling, though it put on hold the portion dealing with refugees.
Last week, a federal appeals court panel weighed in, deciding that the administration could block neither grandparents nor refugees with assurances.
The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to step in again — though only to block refugees, not grandparents and other extended family members. Even those refugees with formal assurances from a resettlement agency lack the sort of connection that should exempt them from the ban, the Justice Department argued in its filing to the Supreme Court.
“The absence of a formal connection between a resettlement agency and a refugee subject to an assurance stands in stark contrast to the sort of relationships this Court identified as sufficient in its June 26 stay ruling,” Wall wrote in his filing. “Unlike students who have been admitted to study at an American university, workers who have accepted jobs at an American company, and lecturers who come to speak to an American audience, refugees do not have any free-standing connection to resettlement agencies, separate and apart from the refugee-admissions process itself, by virtue of the agencies’ assurance agreement with the government.”
Neal Katyal, a lawyer representing the state of Hawaii, which is challenging the travel ban, wrote on Twitter that he would “fight” the government’s latest request.
The government said the battle is urgent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had said its ruling allowing refugees with resettlement agreements would take effect Tuesday, which Wall asserted could be disruptive.
“The government began implementing the Order subject to the limitations articulated by this Court more than two months ago, on June 29, which entailed extensive, worldwide coordination among multiple agencies and the issuance of guidance to provide clarity and minimize confusion,” Wall wrote.
Time is beginning to become a factor in the broader fight over Trump’s travel ban.
The measure was supposed to have been temporary — lasting 90 days for citizens of the six affected countries, and 120 days for refugees. If the measure is considered to have taken effect when the Supreme Court allowed a partial ban, the 90 days will have passed by the time the justices hear arguments Oct. 10, and the 120 days are very likely to have passed by the time they issue a decision.
Some deadlines for reports have also seemingly passed. The Department of Homeland Security secretary was — within 20 days of the order taking effect — to have given Trump the results of a worldwide review determining what information was necessary from other countries to vet travelers. The countries that weren’t supplying adequate information were then to be given 50 days to begin doing so, and after that, top U.S. officials were to give Trump a list of countries recommended for inclusion in a more permanent travel ban.
A Homeland Security spokesman said a report was delivered to the White House in early July on the results of the review, and officials then went about assessing each country based on the information it provided. “Some provided more, some things were cleared up, and others weren’t,” David Lapan, the spokesman, said. “Now we have a comprehensive understanding of the information we receive from all foreign partners.” He said Homeland Security officials were “evaluating the information received and will provide a report to the president in the coming weeks.”
A State Department spokeswoman said Monday that the department was “engaging with foreign governments to meet these new standards for information sharing” but could not “prejudge the outcome of this engagement.”
“We recognize that many governments will need time to meet any new standards, and we will work to assess and, where necessary, work with foreign governments to design a plan to provide the information requested,” the spokeswoman said.
Nearly half of all Americans are affected by a cyber security breach at Equifax, one of the nation’s three major credit-reporting agencies. Here’s how to avoid being a victim. USA TODAY
Equifax faces at least 23 proposed class-action lawsuits since its disclosure that personal identifying information for 143 million U.S. consumers may have been compromised by a massive cyberbreach.
And additional cases are likely to come.
Federal court records show the lawsuits were filed through the weekend after the credit-reporting giant’s Thursday disclosure that a cyberattack by criminal hackers provided unauthorized access to information for nearly 44% of the U.S. population.
Separately, Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, respectively the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance, sent Equifax detailed questions about the breach on Monday.
A copy of the letter, reviewed by USA TODAY, shows the panel wants a detailed timeline of the breach, information about the company’s efforts to identify the number of consumers affected, the breadth of information compromised and the steps Equifax has taken to identify and limit potential consumer harm.
The relatively large number of new lawsuits against Equifax that seek class-action status signal the high legal stakes over the potential for identity-theft losses by millions of Americans whose personal data was exposed.
The cases also show an eagerness by plaintiff law firms to stake swift claims on behalf of consumers who eventually might be in line for a share of either a court judgment against Equifax or a settlement by the company.
”Equifax probably injured 143 million people, which is kind of a record,” said John Coffee, a Columbia Law School professor and director of the school’s Center on Corporate Governance. Although the extent of the damage hasn’t yet been determined, “with 143 million people it doesn’t surprise me there are already 23 suits,” said Coffee.
Equifax did not respond to emails seeking comment on the cases. However, the company acknowledged last week it expects costs related to the cyberattack. Shares of Equifax (EFX) closed down 8.2% at $113.12 in Monday trading, extending Friday’s nearly 13.7% plunge.
x
Embed
x
Share
CLOSE
The news from credit reporting company Equifax that 143 million Americans had their information exposed is very serious. Experts say once your personal data is out there, it’s basically out there forever. (Sept. 8) AP
Unknown hackers carried out the cyberattack out from mid-May through July 2017. The resulting breach primarily involved names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and in some cases, driver’s license numbers, Equifax said last week.
The company said it discovered the intrusion on July 29, but it first disclosed the attack publicly on Sept. 7, after engaging an independent cybersecurity firm to conduct a forensic assessment and provide recommendations to toughen electronic security safeguards.
The Atlanta-based firm is one of the nation’s three largest credit-reporting and monitoring firms, along with Experian and TransUnion.
Equifax organizes and analyzes data on more than 820 million consumers and more than 91 million businesses worldwide. The company’s databases hold employee data submitted by more than 7,100 employers.
x
Embed
x
Share
CLOSE
Names, Social Security numbers and addresses of millions of people were exposed during the Equifax breach.
Video provided by Newsy Newslook
The complaints:
Filed in 14 states and the District of Columbia, the federal lawsuits target either Equifax or the company’s Equifax Information Services subsidiary. The legal complaints cite a range of legal claims, including alleged security negligence by Equifax, the delay in alerting the public and concerns about the free credit monitoring service the company has offered consumers.
Noting that Equifax experienced smaller cyberbreaches in 2013, 2016, and earlier this year, the lawsuit filed in California federal court on behalf of Ehud Gersten and Hannah Obradovich charges the company “knew and should have known of the inadequacy of its own data security.”
Equifax’s delay in alerting consumers was “willful, or at least negligent,” argued the case filed in Illinois federal court on behalf of Dan Lang and Russell Pantek.
As a result, “consumers were deprived of their opportunity to meaningfully consider and address issues related to the potential fraud, as well as to avail themselves of the remedies available under the FCRA (U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act) to prevent further dissemination of their private information,” the Illinois lawsuit alleged.
A California federal court lawsuit filed on behalf of Richard Spicer and Julia Gutierrez in part focused on Equifax’s offer to register consumers for a free year of credit monitoring from TrustedID.
“Equifax failed to disclose to consumers that it owned TrustedID, and its long-term business model turns on baiting consumers into signing up for its services,” the California case alleged. “In other words, Equifax sought to turn its failure to protect consumers’ sensitive data into a clandestine money-making opportunity.”
The company separately drew legal criticism from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office over an implication that those who registered for TrustedID would waive their rights to pursue class-action lawsuits and instead would have to pursue legal claims through arbitration.
Schneiderman is investigating the Equifax cyberbreach. Late Friday, the company said the waiver requirement applied only to the offer of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection, “not the cybersecurity incident.”
How the legal process could play out:
Barring any pretrial settlement, the cases would likely go through a legal culling process.
First, a federal panel on multidistrict litigation would likely to consolidate the cases in a single lawsuit on behalf of all consumers claiming harm, and assign that case to a judge, said Coffee. In turn, the judge would likely determine which law firm or firms would serve as lead plaintiff counsel — a designation that typically brings a larger percentage share of any settlement or judgment.
Although the lawsuits seek class-action status, such a designation typically is approved by a federal court only after extensive legal arguments from plaintiff and defense lawyers.
In a Thursday online notice to investors, Equifax said it was too early “to provide specific estimates of the costs we expect to incur related to the cybersecurity incident.”
While anticipating “some disruption to our business,” Equifax said it “remains committed to delivering on the long term financial model of 7-10% revenue growth and 11%-14% growth in adjusted earnings per share on average over a business cycle.”
Follow USA TODAY reporter Kevin McCoy on Twitter: @kmccoynyc
