Court rejects Trump’s travel ban
UNITED STATES: A federal appeals court refused yesterday to reinstate President Donald Trump’s ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim nations, unanimously rejecting the administration’s claim of presidential authority, questioning its motives and concluding that the order was unlikely to survive legal challenges.
The three judges of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said the argument that the ban targets Muslims raised ‘‘serious allegations’’ and presented ’’significant constitutional questions,’’ and they agreed that courts could consider statements by Trump and his advisers about wishing to enact such a ban.
Moments after the ruling, Trump tweeted, ‘‘SEE YOU IN COURT,’’ adding that ‘‘THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!’’
In response, Washington Governor Jay Inslee, a Democrat who leads one of the states that challenged the ban, said: ‘‘Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you.’’
The panel declined to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travellers to enter the US. But it did not shy away from the larger constitutional questions raised by the order.
The judges sided with the states on every issue except for one technical matter. They rejected the administration’s argument that courts did not have the authority to review the president’s immigration and national security decisions. They said the administration failed to show that the order met constitutional requirements to provide notice or a hearing before restricting travel. And they said the administration presented no evidence that any foreigner from the seven countries was responsible for a terrorist attack in the US.
‘‘Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years,’’ the panel wrote.
The Justice Department said it was ‘‘reviewing the decision and considering its options.’’
Last week, US 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 programme and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.
Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, 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 US, they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.
The appeals court sided with the administration on just one issue. The states had argued that 9th Circuit precedent prohibits review of temporary restraining orders. The panel said that due to the intense public interest at stake and the uncertainty of how long it would take to obtain a further ruling from the lower court, it was appropriate to consider the federal government’s appeal.
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 US. - AP