Law360, New York (March 10, 2017, 12:40 PM EST) -- In the early days of the Trump administration, one of the most controversial, and widely discussed, issues has been Executive Order 13769, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," which suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, indefinitely suspended the entry of Syrian refugees and temporarily halted immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977 (Jan. 27, 2017). The executive order was met with significant legal opposition, including 25 federal cases pending as of mid-February 2017 — many of which involve the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). See, e.g., Mohammed v. United States, No. 17-00786 AB, 2017 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017) (issuing a temporary restraining order preventing the removal or detainment of any person from an affected country with a valid immigrant visa), Tootkaboni, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 17-cv-10154, 2017 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017) (issuing a temporary restraining order to, among other things, limit secondary screening and prevent detainment or removal of holders of valid visas, and people who are part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program), Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 1:17-cv-116, 2017 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017) (issuing a temporary restraining order to permit lawyers access to all legal permanent residents at Dulles International Airport and forbid removal of any lawful permanent residents affected by the Executive Order for a period of seven days from the issuance of the TRO)....
