Trump travel ban dealt another blow, faces high court next

Lance Nichols
June 14, 2017

For the second time in four months, a San Francisco-based federal appeals court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's order to cut off U.S.travel for immigrants from six largely Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa.

He was reacting to the yesterday's ruling by a three- judge bench of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit against the revised travel ban.

President Donald Trump says that the latest federal court ruling against his proposed travel ban comes at a "dangerous time".

"Immigration, even for the president, is not a one-person show", the judges said, adding: "National security is not a "talismanic incantation" that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power".

But the 9th Circuit sidestepped that question, saying they didn't need to answer it because the legality of the travel ban could be decided on narrower grounds: It violated immigration law. A Seattle judge blocked its enforcement nationwide in response to a lawsuit by Washington state - a decision that was unanimously upheld by a different three-judge 9th Circuit panel.

Hawaii federal Judge Derrick Watson blocked a March 6 executive order barring travellers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government put in place stricter visa screening.

"In conclusion, the Order does not offer a sufficient justification to suspend the entry of more than 180 million people on the basis of nationality", wrote the panel. "It does not provide any link between an individual's nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism or their inherent dangerousness".


Trump has insisted the ban is legal and questioned his own lawyers for bowing to court rulings by issuing a "watered-down" version that was also blocked by courts.

It might seem silly of the Ninth Circuit to cite a tweet in its decision, were it not for this press briefing statement from White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said after Monday's ruling that the ban was necessary to protect national security, and the president was within his lawful authority to enact it. The executive orders issuing the "Muslim ban" were immediately challenged in court and the ban was halted.

In his filing with the Supreme Court, ACLU attorney Omar C. Jadwat cited the impact of the ruling on the US Muslim community.

The US Justice Department filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court on June 1, urging it to undo the Fourth Circuit's ruling.

"By holding that the district court was wrong to block the executive order's internal review procedures, the court of appeals allowed that review to go forward - and, in the process, took away one of the arguments the government had been making in the Supreme Court for why the Hawaii order should be overturned", Vladeck said.

Other reports by TheDigitalNewspaper

Discuss This Article

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER