Gov't wants more time to address second travel ban ruling
- Author: Zachary Reyes Jun 14, 2017,
Jun 14, 2017, 1:02
President Donald Trump criticized the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday for upholding a block on his revised travel ban at, what he called, "such a risky time in the history of our country". Even so, it would still take some extraordinary maneuvering by the high court to rule in time to save the order, given its schedule. And now, the fight is on the Supreme Court's doorstep.
The appellate court said the president overstepped his authority when he issued the March 6 executive order.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said after Monday's ruling that the ban was necessary to protect national security, and the president was within his lawful authority to enact it.
In response, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on Monday that they are reviewing the court's opinion.
Under the government's scenario outlined in Wall's letter, the Supreme Court would discuss how to act on the emergency application at its private conference on June 22, a week after the Gorsuch ceremony.
Trump seemed to be saying he will appeal to the Supreme Court in adding "S.C." at the end of his tweet. Noting that the administration of former president Barack Obama had established a level of 110,000 and justified it on humanitarian grounds, the judges said the order "gives no explanation for why the 50,001st to the 110,000th refugee would be harmful to the national interest, nor does it specify any further threat to national security".
The Trump administration argues the measures are needed to ward off potential terror attacks.
The court, based in San Francisco, also cited Trump's tweets about the need for "extreme vetting" as part of its decision not to reinstate the ban. In late May, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against the travel ban, affirming a Maryland court's nationwide injunction.
Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said Monday's ruling was yet another signal that Trump's executive order was on weak legal footing.