Circuit Court of Appeals feels travel ban is not legal
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals announced it will not reinstate President Donald Trump’s 90-day ban on travelers from seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. The government had asked for a stay of a temporary restraining order that suspended the implementation of the travel ban.
In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges from the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S.
“[T]he emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied,” The ruling read.
This is not a decision on the merits — it merely keeps the temporary restraining order suspending the travel ban in place.
President Trump was quick to react to the court ruling via Twitter.
SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017
A three-judge panel heard arguments over the phone on Tuesday and will rule on whether to keep in place a lower court’s temporary restraining order that blocked the travel ban from being implemented.
Then Tuesday, Justice Department argued before the 9th Circuit Court that it is within the president’s powers to deny entry to immigrant’s entry into the U.S. for national security reasons, and also questioned whether the states have standing to bring the lawsuit.
In their ruling the judges appeared to be skeptical of the government’s proof for why the executive order is necessary, and also pushed back when he suggested the public statements of Mr. Trump and other advisers about a proposed Muslim ban shouldn’t be used to determine the intent of the executive order.
An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible and would put the decision in the hands of a divided court that has a vacancy. Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, could not be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.
The appeals panel said the government presented no evidence to explain the urgent need for the executive order to take effect immediately. The judges noted compelling public interests on both sides.
“On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.”
The circuit court rejected the administration’s claim that it did not have the authority to review the president’s executive order.
“There is no precedent to support this claimed unreview ability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” the court said.
Last week, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation’s refugee program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.
Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit Court, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.
The states said Trump’s travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump’s campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.
Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday. The judges hammered away at the administration’s claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states’ argument that it targeted Muslims.
“I have trouble understanding why we’re supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected,” Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.
Only 15 percent of the world’s Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.
“Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?” Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.
After the ban was put on hold, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports around the country.
The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the Supreme Court would take up the issue. The administration also could change the order, including changing its scope or duration.
Some quotes used in this story were from ASSOCIATED PRESS.
