US Court of Ap­peals to Hear Chal­lenge to Trump’s Ban

US Pres­i­dent’s Jan 27 ex­ec­u­tive or­der had sparked protests and chaos at US and overseas air­ports

The Economic Times - - Around The World -

San Fran­cisco | Wash­ing­ton: The US Jus­tice Depart­ment will face off with op­po­nents in a fed­eral ap­peals court on Tues­day over the fate of Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s tem­po­rary travel ban on peo­ple from seven Mus­lim-ma­jor­ity coun­tries, his most con­tro­ver­sial act since tak­ing office last month.

Last Fri­day, US District Judge James Ro­bart sus­pended Trump’s ban, open­ing a win­dow for peo­ple from the seven af­fected coun­tries to en­ter the coun­try. The 9th US Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals in San Fran­cisco will hear ar­gu­ments over whether to re­store the ban from Jus­tice Depart­ment lawyers and op­pos­ing at­tor­neys for the states of Min­nesota and Wash­ing­ton at 3 p.m. PST.

In a brief filed on Mon­day, the Jus­tice Depart­ment said the sus­pen­sion of Trump’s or­der was too broad and “at most” should be limited to peo­ple who we­re­al­ready­grant­e­den­try­tothe­coun­try and were tem­po­rar­ily abroad, or to those who want to leave and re­turn to the US.

Op­po­nents say the 90-day ban bar­ring en­try for cit­i­zens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, So­ma­lia, Su­dan, Syria and Ye­men and im­pos­ing a 120-day halt to all refugees, is il­le­gal. The state of Wash­ing­ton ar­gues it has suf­fered harm, say­ing some stu­dents and fac­ulty at state uni­ver­si­ties had been stranded overseas be­cause of the ban.

All the peo­ple who had car­ried out fa­tal at­tacks in­spired by Is­lamist mil­i­tancy in the United States since the Septem­ber 11, 2001, at­tacks had been US cit­i­zens or le­gal res­i­dents, the New Amer­ica think tank said. None came to the United States or were from a fam­ily that em­i­grated from one of the coun­tries listed in the travel ban, it said.

Trump faces an up­hill bat­tle in the lib­eral-lean­ing San Fran­cisco court. Two mem­bers of three-judge panel that will hear the ar­gu­ments were ap­pointed by for­mer Demo­cratic Pres­i­dents Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, and one was ap­pointed by Bush. Ap­peals courts are gen­er­ally leery of up­end­ing the sta­tus quo, which in this case is the lower court’s sus­pen­sion of the ban. Op­po­nents of the ban re­ceived far more fil­ings in sup­port of their po­si­tion than the Depart­ment of Jus­tice. Wash­ing­ton state’s chal­lenge was backed by about a dozen friends-of-the­court briefs sub­mit­ted by at least 17 state at­tor­neys gen­eral, more than 100 com­pa­nies, and about a dozen la­bor and civil rights groups.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.