Advocacy Update

May 3, 2018: Judicial Advocacy Update


The Trump administration argues that its executive order severely limiting immigration or business and tourist travel to and from eight countries is necessary to promote national security. The Association of American Medical Colleges, the AMA and 33 other health care professional organizations argue that it will have the opposite effect.

Standing for physicians

The AMA Litigation Center is the strongest voice for America's medical profession in legal proceedings across the country.

"From a legal standpoint, it's an issue of health security," AAMC Executive Vice President Atul Grover, MD, PhD, told AMA Wire. "The premise of the executive order is that we have to keep people out to keep us safe. But you're keeping people out who are going to take care of us."

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments April 25 in Trump v. Hawaii, a case involving a presidential executive order officially known as proclamation No. 9645, prohibiting immigration or limiting business and tourist travel to and from North Korea, Venezuela, and six Muslim-majority nations: Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

The AAMC filed an amicus brief that was joined by the AMA and 33 other professional associations in support of the state of Hawaii and other plaintiffs seeking to block implementation of the president's order.

Hawaii argues that the proclamation, also known as the "travel ban," hinders the University of Hawaii's retention and recruitment of students and faculty, harms the state's tourism industry, and impairs the state's ability to enforce nondiscrimination laws.

The AMA, AAMC and the others argue the ban exacerbates the growing physician shortage, widens workforce gaps in underserved areas, disrupts U.S. physician-training programs, and impedes the collaboration of scientists and health professionals seeking to prevent, prepare for and manage public health threats.

Read more at AMA Wire.