Trump travel ban fight heads toward Supreme Court showdown

  • Trump travel ban fight heads toward Supreme Court showdown

Trump travel ban fight heads toward Supreme Court showdown

At issue is Trump's plan to ban most travel from six countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen - for 90 days and suspend the entire refugee program for 120 days.

Much as we find Mr. Trump's travel ban offensive, imprudent and unwise; much as we believe it inflicts real harm not just on America's foreign policy objectives but also on families, communities and institutions in the United States, it's fair to wonder whether it really amounts to an attack on Islam and an affront to the Constitution.

Rather than appeal to the Supreme Court, Trump revoked his first travel ban and issued a revised version on March 6. "It can not go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation". "It can not go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation", the chief judge of the circuit, Roger L. Gregory wrote.

Thursday, in rejecting the travel ban, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals zeroed in on the comments Donald Trump as a candidate and president, the government's national security justifications, and the role of the courts.

The ban was announced in early March, however, never got into effect because it was nearly immediately blocked by federal judges.

"Apart from violating all established rules for construing unambiguous texts - whether statutes, regulations, executive orders or, indeed, contracts - reliance on campaign statements to impose a new meaning on an unambiguous executive order is completely odd to judicial analysis", he said. Trump during the presidential campaign called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".

Although another appeal is still pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a ruling from that court could come at any time, yesterday's ruling means that the travel ban will remain blocked regardless of how that court rules. In defense of the EO, the administration has asserted a need to accord deference to the president's actions taken to protect the nation's security. It also asks that refugees wait 120 days before entering the country and cuts the number of refugees the US accepts each year to 50,000.

The U.S. bishops opposed the first travel ban as well as the second.

The appeals court decision was written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in a recess appointment and re-appointed by Republican President George W. Bush.

The first travel ban in January triggered chaos and protests across the country as travelers were stopped from boarding worldwide flights and detained at airports for hours.

"The government said they want to appeal to the Supreme Court, but they didn't say when", he said.

"Today the majority of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit saw through the hollow national security claims of this administration and struck a blow to those who seek to criminalize and demonize individuals on the basis of religion, ethnicity, and national origin".

Thursday's ruling is obviously a remarkable victory for the plaintiffs, advocates, and civil rights organizations that have fought against Trump's immigration executive orders for months.

Given the judicial holdings, all USA land and air ports of entry are prohibited from enforcing the controversial travel ban portions contained in the first or second executive orders.

Critics said the changes don't erase the legal problems with the ban.