Apple Not Listed on New Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Second Travel Ban

Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and more than 60 other companies have either decided not to sign, or have yet to sign, a new legal brief filed in federal court in Hawaii this week, constituting the makings of a lawsuit looking to block the second version of President Donald Trump's travel ban (via Reuters). Trump referred to the new order as a "watered-down version" of the original, but a federal judge in Hawaii nevertheless blocked the revised order.

Over a month ago, Apple joined 100 U.S. companies in support of a legal brief that opposed the first immigration ban. That order banned Syrian refugees from entering the United States, blocked citizens of seven countries (Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen) from entering the U.S. for 90 days, and suspended entry of all refugees entering the U.S. for 120 days. The new ban removed Iraq from the list, exempted green card and visa holders, and toned down "contentious language referring to religious minorities."


On Tuesday, a new legal brief was filed in a Hawaiian court on behalf of 58 total Silicon Valley companies voicing support for the state's blocking of Trump's order, down from 127 companies on the first brief. A few companies mentioned on the new opposition brief include Kickstarter, Airbnb, and Dropbox. Although the current list is small, hope for the lawsuit to succeed is growing, and New York lawyer Robert Atkins -- who co-authored the new brief -- said "we do expect the group to expand."
Apple Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google and Facebook Inc are among more than 60 technology companies that appear to have backed away from the legal fight against U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban, deciding not to put their weight behind a lawsuit seeking to block the second version of his executive order.

A legal brief filed in federal court in Hawaii on Tuesday on behalf of Silicon Valley companies listed the support of 58 companies, less than half the 127 signatories to a similar brief filed in an appeals court last month after Trump's first executive order banning travel from a number of countries the administration said posed a security risk.

It was not immediately clear why fewer of them signed on to the "friend-of-the-court" brief this time around.
Apple was a large part of the opposition to the travel ban last month, helping pen an open letter to Trump explaining that the U.S. is a "nation made stronger by immigrants," while Apple CEO Tim Cook said that it "is not a policy we support." Trump himself said he plans to appeal against the federal judge's halting of his revised order and take the case "as far as it needs to go," including the Supreme Court.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.



Top Rated Comments

(View all)
Avatar
2 weeks ago
law supporting trump immigration

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/316871-trumps-immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/on-the-muslim-immigration-ban-the-law-favors-trump-2017-02-07

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/06/gregg-jarrett-why-law-is-on-trumps-side-with-his-immigration-ban.html

Oops. Facts.

It is not a muslim ban because predominantly muslim countries are not impacted. It is a ban from countries with little or no effective government or databases on population to vet against for determining immigrant identification and background. Despite what a random Hawaiian court says.
Rating: 12 Votes
Avatar
2 weeks ago

All public declarations receive authority and derive from law.


Mmmm... no, we are not in a Monarchy. We're in the US. A law derives its authority by the Constitution and the law itself, not by the people writing down the law.
[doublepost=1489672908][/doublepost]


Yes, since the judicial branch looks for intent of law when deciding on validity of law.


It's not criminal or tort law. It's policy we're talking about. Intent is not meant as the mental attitude, it is meant as the ultimate 'problem' that the law itself (and not who writes it) deals with.
Rating: 9 Votes
Avatar
2 weeks ago

It's a Muslim ban, since it was declared as such during the campaign. *ooops* busted haha!

A Muslim ban is illegal, as it violates the first amendment of the constitution, which declares that the government isn't allowed to establish a religion.


A public declaration has nothing to do with what the law says. For the law (or - the EO, to be precise), a Christian Syrian can't enter the country exactly as a Muslim Syrian.
Rating: 9 Votes
Avatar
2 weeks ago
So Apple is not listed on a legal brief opposing an executive order that has next to nothing to do with Apple.. and there is no rumor... so nothing Apple, no rumors... Yet it is on... MacRumors o_O
Rating: 8 Votes
Avatar
2 weeks ago

I don't get the logic of this travel ban....

Ban people from countries whose citizens have not attacked the US. But let in ones from countries that have....


These are the countries that the Obama Administration felt were hotbeds for terrorist activities and this temporary ban is to make sure our screening process is not allowing dangerous people through.
Rating: 8 Votes
Avatar
2 weeks ago

It's a Muslim ban, since it was declared as such during the campaign.


All public declarations receive authority and derive from law.
[doublepost=1489672687][/doublepost]


Is Trump campaign rhetoric legally binding? SCOTUS ruled Obama flip-flopping on whether Obamacare mandate was a tax was irrelevant.
Rating: 7 Votes
Avatar
2 weeks ago

A lot of people seem to have missed the second point with regard to the 7 countries (on the list created by Mr Obama), besides Syria. That point being that for all or part of the last 8 years we have been bombing and/or drone striking locations in each country and the collateral damage (read: civilian loss) has not been zero.

I can't imagine why anyone from one of those countries might want to come here and do anything but hold our hand and sing Kum By Yah... /s

A lot of people miss the only fact that matters, Trump has legal authority to do this, no matter who or what country. That's a simple fact.
Rating: 7 Votes
Avatar
2 weeks ago

Legally, he can block anyone from entering this country. People just don't seem to understand this.


Liberals don't care much about what is legal, they care about their feeelings (even when those feelings are expressed as violence). Funny thing, they aren't even aware that those feeelings are implanted in their mass-controlled minds by the less than 1% ruling elite.

Anyway, it's good Apple if keeps to making devices and not politics. Businesses are loosing business due to their CEO's coming out as braindead liberals. Apple shouldn't do that mistake.

Hopefully globalism will be self regulated into a trash can somewhere far away in an another galaxy. On a planet for liberal misery and fascism.

The list of tech companies boycotting a legal action of the President is similar to the list of "fake-media" outlets (made by the real fake media). The tech list is a list of companies to avoid, the other list is a list over news-outlets to read since they don't agree with the globalism narrative.
Rating: 7 Votes
Avatar
2 weeks ago
I don't get the logic of this travel ban....

Ban people from countries whose citizens have not attacked the US. But let in ones from countries that have....
Rating: 7 Votes
Avatar
2 weeks ago

law supporting trump immigration

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/316871-trumps-immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/on-the-muslim-immigration-ban-the-law-favors-trump-2017-02-07

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/06/gregg-jarrett-why-law-is-on-trumps-side-with-his-immigration-ban.html

Oops. Facts.

It is not a muslim ban because predominantly muslim countries are not impacted. It is a ban from countries with little or no effective government or databases on population to vet against for determining immigrant identification and background. Despite what a random Hawaiian court says.

Legally, he can block anyone from entering this country. People just don't seem to understand this.
Rating: 6 Votes
[ Read All Comments ]