Commonwealth of Virginia
Office of the Attorney General
202 North Ninth Street
For media inquiries only, contact:
Michael Kelly, Director of Communications
STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL HERRING
~ On President Trump's significantly scaled-back executive order ~
RICHMOND (March 6, 2017)-Attorney General Mark R. Herring issued the following statement on President Trump's revocation of his original travel ban and issuance of a significantly scaled-back executive order regarding immigration and travel:
"This pared-down order is an incredible concession from President Trump that all but concedes the significant constitutional and practical flaws that the Courts and I saw in his original ban. Our goal has always been to protect the Commonwealth of Virginia and our residents who were harmed by President Trump's ill-conceived, poorly-implemented, and un-American ban, particularly green card holders and those at our businesses and colleges with valid work and student visas. It is significant that after we won the nation's first preliminary injunction against the ban, President Trump has now revoked his original order and apparently exempted all those persons from his revised order.
"President Trump's ban remains a solution in search of a problem. Although the new order appears to be significantly scaled back, it still sends a horrible message to the world, to Muslim-Americans, and to minority communities across the country, without any demonstrable benefit to national security. We will closely examine this new order to determine its impact, how it may affect our ongoing challenge to the original ban, and whether there are any additional steps we need to take to protect Virginia and our residents."
On January 31, Attorney General Herring filed suit on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia to stop enforcement of President Trump's original ban. On February 13, a federal judge in Virginia issued the nation's first preliminary injunction against the ban, preventing enforcement of the ban against Virginia residents after finding that it was likely unconstitutional.
# # #