Federal appeals court rules against revised 'travel ban'

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld nearly entirely the ruling from a district court in Hawaii ("an island in the Pacific") striking down the second version of his travel ban.

The new ruling intensified the dispute as it was just beginning to unfold in the Supreme Court.

We find it hard to understand why the government's lawyers do not prevail upon the government to collect necessary data and make a persuasive showing as to why the travel ban is required for these six countries or why all refugees need to be banned.

The administration said it would seek further review at the U.S. Supreme Court, as it has already done with a ruling against the travel ban by another appeals court last month.

US District Judge Derrick Watson previously ruled the main goal of President Trump's travel ban was to discriminate against the religion Islam.

In a filing with the Supreme Court on Monday, the plaintiffs in the Maryland case argue that the controversy is about to become moot, because the entry ban provision was only meant to last for 90 days, and that time runs out two days from now.

The court also faulted the White House for rushing out the first version of the executive order without consulting with the national security agencies and causing confusion at airports in the United States.

Those tweets have prompted criticism, as some argue that they tie the policy too closely to Trump's call for a ban on Muslim immigration, an argument the court made while citing one of Trump's tweets. Depending upon how quickly lawyers for the government and the challengers submit new filings on the new Ninth Circuit Court's decision and any remaining filings in the Fourth Circuit case, the immigration controversy could be taken up at the Thursday discussion, or at a special conference centering only on that dispute. The 9th Circuit's ruling makes it easier for the Supreme Court to keep the ban in place by allowing the government to continue with its internal review process.

He also is reiterating the Trump administration's argument that the ban isn't based on religion, but safety concerns. Church World Service, one of the main refugee resettlement agencies in the US, said, "The courts have spoken yet again in favor of justice and humanity".

"How is a court to know if, in fact, it's a Muslim ban in the guise of national security justification?" asked Judge Ronald Gould.

So the travel ban ball is now in the Supremes' court. The judges were not directly ruling on the merits of the travel ban itself; however, to evaluate whether the injunction was appropriate, they had to weigh the probable impact of the travel ban and the likelihood that a case against it would succeed.

"Immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show", the 86-page opinion states.

The ban has been blocked on the grounds that it violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by disfavoring Muslims.

Trump has been on the losing side in all four court rulings on the March order.

The ruling is yet another rejection from a court that similarly refused to reinstate Trump's original executive order on travel in February.

  • Zachary Reyes