Last month’s blog post described President Trump’s October 4 proclamation that would require some categories of immigrants seeking to enter the U.S. to have certain kinds of health insurance within 30 days of entry in order to obtain immigrant visas at U.S. consulates abroad. The kinds of insurance that count are so limited that the policy might exclude ⅔ of future immigrants. 

But on the very afternoon before this brick was to be placed in Trump’s invisible wall on November 3, a federal judge in the District of Oregon issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the Proclamation from going into effect, at least until that court has another hearing on November 22 to consider issuing a preliminary injunction.

Latino Network and several individual plaintiffs with compelling personal stories about family members who would risk being denied visas challenged the Proclamation. Judge Michael Simon’s opinion included in The Oregonian’s report gave several reasons why the Proclamation will be found to violate federal immigration and health care law and to be “arbitrary and capricious.” The public charge law lists several factors to be considered as a “totality” when deciding who might financially burden the U.S. Congress has “rejected the Proclamation’s core premise” that “health care insurance status,” which isn’t even one of those factors, can be the “sole factor for determining inadmissibility.” Many of the kinds of health insurance that could qualify under the Proclamation aren’t “legally or practically” available to most of the affected immigrants. And families can be irreparably injured by separation resulting from the Proclamation denying or delaying visas.

In the words of Senior Litigator Esther Sung of Justice Action Center, “It’s egregious that President Trump is attempting to flout the will of Congress and squeeze through a complete overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws without anyone noticing. Our fight will continue — we will stand with our plaintiffs and all immigrants to challenge this unjust health care ban.” Other legal organizations involved in the case are the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the Innovation Law Lab, and Sidley Austin LLP (pro bono).

– Charlie Mitchell, NoHLA Senior Staff Attorney