USA appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump's travel ban
- Author: Leroy Wright May 28, 2017,
May 28, 2017, 9:54
After having the revised Trump executive order blocked on Thursday, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Administration lawyers have 90 days to ask the Supreme Court to review that decision. The opinion continues that while the president has power to limit entry to the country, "that power is not absolute".
"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 this nation", Gregory wrote.
The administration has promised a high court appeal of a ruling blocking the president's ban on visitors from six majority Muslim countries.
"Based on this evidence", the court concluded that Trump's executive order's "stated national security interest was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for its religious objective".
"The simple fact of the matter is that regardless of any ulterior motive one might ascribe to the president, the record still conclusively establishes that the temporary travel pause will in fact promote an important national security objective", Niemeyer added. If so, then they will be dealing with an area of the law, immigration, where courts have given presidents a lot of leeway. In fact, Trump's Muslim ban hands our real enemies like ISIL and al-Qaeda a powerful recruiting tool and undermines our relationships with partners overseas.
The second travel ban, Gregory concluded, "cannot be divorced from the cohesive narrative linking it to the animus that inspired it".
If that happens, the justices' vote on an emergency motion would signal whether the government is likely to win in the end.
A ruling is expected any day in a similar case from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco.
The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit is the first appeals court to rule on the revised travel ban unveiled in March. Trump's administration had hoped it would avoid the legal problems that the first version encountered. Trump during the presidential campaign called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".
Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared that the executive order is "well within" Trump's "lawful authority to keep the nation safe". The countries were not chosen because they are predominantly Muslim but because they present terrorism risks, the administration says.
The decision, written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory, described Trump's executive order in forceful terms, saying it uses "vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination". As the dissenting judges explained, the executive order is a constitutional exercise of the President's duty to protect our communities from terrorism.
If the court agrees to hear the case, the appeal wouldn't be heard until fall at the earliest, unless the justices take an extraordinary step and order arguments sooner.
"If a different president had issued this order, would it be unconstitutional?"
But the judges even questioned whether the government established enough of a national security threat to warrant a blanket ban against people from the six targeted countries. Its rollout resulted in confusion and protests at airports across the nation.
In this September 27, 2016 file photo, 4th Circuit Court of. He has changed his tune now, but judges still can not unhear what was said. To make his case, Gregory laid out Trump's history of anti-Muslim statements on the campaign trail.
Thapar, who sits on the US District Court for Kentucky's Eastern District, was confirmed for the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals by a 52-44 vote on Thursday and is the first Indian-American to be nominated by Trump for the key seat.