US Justice Dept will appeal travel ban
- Author: Joanne Flowers May 26, 2017,
May 26, 2017, 15:32
To put the ban in motion, the Justice Department would also have had to win at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which heard oral arguments on May 15 in the government's appeal of the Hawaii decision.
The court said the administration's claim that the ban was aimed at protecting national security was a "secondary justification for an executive order rooted in religious animus and meant to bar Muslims from this country".
The case ruled on by the 4th Circuit was originally brought in Maryland by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center on behalf of organizations as well as people who live in the US and fear the executive order will prevent them from being reunited with family members from the banned countries.
"The President is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States".
The White House says it remains confident that President Donald Trump's travel ban is lawful and ultimately will be upheld by the courts.
"These clearly are very risky times and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence", Michael Short, senior assistant press secretary, said in a statement.
"I'll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said "Muslim ban", Giuliani said.
ROSE: Well, there's a parallel case playing out in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the West Coast.
The appellate court took the deepest dive yet into the issue of whether statements made by candidate Trump should be considered in evaluating the executive order he issued after he became president. He says looking at the order on its face, "it is entirely without constitutional fault".
Judge Paul Niemeyer was one of the three judges to dissent. In a rare move, the court had granted a full hearing earlier in the month, meaning 13 judges had heard arguments.
Niemeyer said there were more than enough reasons for a president to institute the "modest action" of temporarily suspending immigration from the targeted countries, given their ties to terrorism. He says the ban was justified to ensure existing screening procedures were adequate.
A Virginia-based federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration's controversial travel ban, becoming the second circuit court to uphold lower court rulings against the policy.
The court also found the challengers were likely to suffer "irreparable harm" if the ban were implemented and that it might violate the U.S. Constitution.
In an opinion that concurred with the majority on Thursday, Judge Stephanie Thacker wrote that the administration did nothing to distance itself from the first order, describing the revised ban as "the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing".
Travel Ban 2.0, as it was popularly referred to, was similar to the first iteration and blocked travel entry from six predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen - Iraq was exempted in the second version.
The case is International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 17-1351, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (Richmond).
Now that the administration has lost in the 4th Circuit, the Justice Department could appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a ruling Thursday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said the order did amount to a Muslim ban. "It can not go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across the nation".
The revised ban targeted six-Muslim majority countries.
Summary: Another federal appeals court has upheld the block on President Trump's travel ban.
"This opinion relies on principles that should be exceptionally persuasive to the Supreme Court", said Joshua A. Matz, who filed a brief in support of the challengers, "though, of course, it is possible that the justices will see things differently than the lower court".
The matter is likely to go before the Supreme Court.
Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, said if the Supreme Court follows a partisan divide, the Trump administration may fare better since five of the nine are Republican nominees.