The Trump Administration Travel Ban Is Headed To The Supreme Court

It was more than plausible, he added, that the revised order's "stated national security interest was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for its religious goal".

The 10-3 majority in its decision cited Trump's campaign promises extensively to counter arguments by the government that the bans were not discriminatory but based on national security considerations.

"Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute", he added.

"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", he said.

Judge Paul Niemeyer sharply dissented from the decision, saying it will make the USA more unsafe.

Niemeyer was joined by judges Dennis W. Shedd and G. Steven Agee. However, as long as the Fourth Circuit's nationwide injunction remains in effect, President Trump's revised travel ban for nationals of the six countries will remain blocked regardless of the Ninth Circuit's ruling. The second order allowed case-by-case exceptions for incoming travelers and lifted the ban against Iraqi visitors.

A federal judge in Hawaii has also halted that provision and the freeze on the US refugee program.

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit is expected to rule soon after hearing arguments in Seattle this month, and the issue is likely to reach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court nearly certainly would step into the case if asked. Courtesy of Bloomberg Politics and YouTube.

The administration formulated that measure after courts blocked Trump's original ban, imposed January 27. The decision is a blow for the Trump administration and the travel ban which has repeatedly been blocked by United States courts.

The travel ban sought to impose a 90-day halt in migration from six majority-Muslim countries.

Linda Hartke, LIRS President and CEO said in the statement: "In its first 100 days, we have seen efforts to block refugees and migrants who are fleeing violence in their homeland from entering our country.The notion that certain countries or ethnicities pose more of a danger than others is baseless at best".

Critics said the changes don't erase the legal problems with the ban.

In a stinging rebuke to President Donald Trump, a USA appeals court refused on Thursday to reinstate his travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority nations, calling it discriminatory and setting the stage for a showdown in the Supreme Court.

Central in the case was whether courts should consider Trump's past statements about wanting to bar Muslims from entering the country as evidence the policy was primarily motivated by the religion.

"Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles - that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another".

Fox News' Bill Mears and The Associated Press contributed to this report. The justices nearly always have the final say when a lower court strikes down a federal law or presidential action. The Department of Justice "strongly disagrees with this decision", he wrote, and "will seek review of this case" in the Supreme Court.

Attorney-General Jeff Sessions said it is the president's "duty to protect our communities from terrorism" and vowed to bring a review of the latest ruling to the US Supreme Court. Courtesy of CNN and YouTube.

  • Leroy Wright