Hawaii files travel ban opposition in US Supreme Court
- Author: Larry Hoffman Jun 22, 2017,
Jun 22, 2017, 3:41
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.
Under the circumstances it's entirely likely that by the time the case gets heard by the U.S. Supreme Court the issue of a 90-day "pause" will be moot and the "ban" will be little more than political theater.
"Immigration, even for the president, is not a one-person show", the judges wrote in a unanimous opinion. The second order was meant to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, but was blocked by judges before it could go into effect on March 16. President's attempted Muslim ban fed into the current culture of Islamophobia within the USA and overseas. He argued that the second travel ban would continue to keep from her out of the US, and away from relatives.
According to the decision that law "requires that the President exercise his authority only after meeting the precondition of finding that entry of an alien or class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States".
A string of court rulings have blocked the ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. "The courts have once again struck down the Trump administration's attempts to slam the door on refugees and discriminate against Muslims by executive order".
Attorneys general have also directly filed suit against Trump's first and second immigration bans, according to a news release.
The three-judge panel of the court upheld a lower court decision and said Trump violated USA immigration law with the ban. That violated the Constitution's prohibition on the government officially favoring or disfavoring any religion, he said. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to lift this injunction temporarily while the larger case makes its way through the court.
The White House has previously vowed to challenge these court orders.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called the national security concerns an after-the-fact justification for a policy that was "rooted in religious animus and meant to bar Muslims from this country". The 9th Circuit today narrowed Watson's ruling in some minor ways, allowing the administration to conduct an internal review of its vetting procedures for refugees and visa applicants. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled only that Trump had failed to fulfill requirements under immigration laws that govern when the president may stop entry of foreign nationals into the country. He blamed the Justice Department for not sticking with the "original travel ban".
The revised ban, the White House has said, took into account judges' cited reasons for putting it on hold, and predicted it would pass constitutional muster.