Judge Theodore D. Chuang, the federal judge in Maryland who ruled against the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development on Tuesday, has previously intervened in several high-profile legal cases from President Trump’s first term in office.
Eight years ago, Mr. Trump started his presidency with a wide-reaching ban on travelers from several Muslim-majority countries, arguing that they posed a national security risk. The ban caused chaos at U.S. ports of entry, partly because Mr. Trump issued it without warning. Some people learned that they had been barred from entry only after they had arrived in the United States. Widespread protests were held at airports to denounce the travel ban.
Judge Chuang — appointed to the U.S. District Court for Maryland by President Barack Obama — was one of two judges who blocked the ban for a second time after the Trump administration rescinded and resubmitted the order to remove some of its more contentious elements — an attempt to demonstrate to the courts that the ban did not intend to target Muslims specifically.
Judge Chuang was not persuaded by that argument, ruling that the likely purpose of Mr. Trump’s order was to enact “the proposed Muslim ban” that the president had campaigned on. The judge ordered that the ban not take effect, citing Mr. Trump’s public comments to conclude that the president may have intended to violate the constitutional prohibition on religious preferences.
“In this highly unique case,” Judge Chuang wrote, “the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban.”
Months later, Mr. Trump issued the travel ban for a third time, once again tailoring the order and language so that they would hold up under scrutiny from the courts. Judge Chuang again blocked the order, citing Mr. Trump’s repeated promises to bar Muslims from entering the country, as well as other statements he had made since taking office that were seen as hostile to Muslims.
Three years later, in the first months of the coronavirus pandemic, Judge Chuang again intervened to block a Trump administration measure, ruling that a federal requirement that women pick up abortion pills in person imposed needless risk and delay, particularly given that the health emergency had forced many clinics to reduce their hours.
The case then made its way through the appeals process, and the Trump administration was denied a stay in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit before bringing it to the Supreme Court. But in an unusual order, the Supreme Court returned the case to Judge Chuang, requesting “a more comprehensive record” and a new ruling while the disputed requirement remained suspended.
Judge Chuang issued a second opinion on Dec. 9, again blocking the requirement. The “health risk has only gotten worse,” he wrote.
“The Covid-19 pandemic is substantially worse” Judge Chuang wrote, noting that millions of Americans had fallen ill and hundreds of thousands had died. The severity of the pandemic, he added, was likely to increase.
The Supreme Court ultimately overturned Judge Chuang’s rulings in both the travel ban and abortion drug cases.
The court allowed the third version of Mr. Trump’s Muslim travel ban to stay in effect while the appeals courts considered the issue. Months later, the Supreme Court upheld the ban, saying that Mr. Trump’s power to secure the country’s borders was not undermined by his incendiary statements toward Muslims.
Then, in 2021, the Supreme Court reinstated the requirement that women pick up abortion pills in person at a hospital or clinic.
Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.
Content Source: www.nytimes.com