Trump travel ban dealt another blow, faces high court next

Last month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, upheld an injunction on President Trump's travel ban, saying the executive order, "speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination".

The majority of those judges found that Trump's executive order "drips with religious intolerance" and that "the reasonable observer would likely conclude that EO-2's primary objective is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs".

The 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Monday refused to revive President Donald Trump's travel ban targeting residents of six Muslim-majority countries, reported Reuters.

Spicer on Monday said the administration is reviewing the decision and said it believes the travel ban is "lawful" and will be ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps the senator's most well-known public showing of Trump disapproval came when Merkley delivered a 15-hour speech from the Senate floor in an attempt to stall the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement later on Monday.

The 9th Circuit judges said they didn't need to reach the constitutional question because the travel ban violated immigration law, and thus wasn't allowed.

Separately, a San Francisco-based USA appeals court announced it would issue a ruling on the same issue on Monday.

In March, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii blocked the new version from taking effect, citing what he called "significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus" in Trump's campaign statements.

The three-judge panel of the court upheld a lower court decision and said Trump violated USA immigration law with the ban.

"Immigration, even for the president, is not a one-person show", the three justices - all appointed by former president Bill Clinton - said in their unanimous ruling.

In January, Trump signed an executive order blocking the entry of people from Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen.

The judges said the government had failed to prove "any link between an individual's nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism", and cited a June 5 tweet by Trump to back their argument.

The judges say the president violated USA immigration law by discriminating against people based on their nationality and that Trump failed to show their entry into the country would hurt American interests. That helped demonstrate he was not assessing whether the roughly 180 million citizens of the six countries had ties to terrorism, they said.

Chin says he expects Hawaii's lawsuit challenging the travel ban to go to the U.S. Supreme Court along with a similar ruling by another appeals court.

It also listed some reasons that travelers from those nations might be granted waivers allowing them into the US despite the policy. The 9th Circuit said he was required to consult with Congress in setting the number of refugees allowed into the country in a given year and that he could not decrease it midyear.

The Department of Homeland Security report - issued just after Trump's first executive order - concluded that citizenship of any given country "is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity" and that citizens from the countries targeted by Trump's ban are "rarely implicated in US-based terrorism".

  • Larry Hoffman