Trump’s travel ban cops legal caning

UNITED STATES: President Donald Trump suffered another legal defeat yesterday when the US appeals court in Virginia ruled his foreign travel ban may not be enforced, bluntly saying that it appears to discriminate based on religion and that the administration’s argument that the order was needed to protect national security was a ‘‘pretext’’ offered in ‘‘bad faith’’.

The 10-3 decision from the 4th Circuit Court kept in place nationwide orders from two district judges that had blocked the president’s revised decree. His order aimed to restrict new immigrants and travellers from six majority-Muslim nations.

All 10 judges in the majority were Democratic appointees; the three Republican appointees dissented.

Although the decision was another sweeping defeat for the president and his lawyers, it clears

"(Trump's order) speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination." Chief Judge Roger L Gregory

the way for them to take the issue to the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority gives them a better chance of prevailing.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department will appeal the block on the travel ban to the high court.

Yesterday’s decision was the latest in which Trump’s words formed the core of the case against him.

In issuing the limited travel ban, Trump said the temporary restrictions were needed because of the threat of terrorists arriving from countries including Libya, Somalia and Yemen. The judges in the majority said they did not believe that was true purpose behind the executive order.

Trump’s order ‘‘speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination,’’ Chief Judge Roger L Gregory wrote. He said the order conflicts with the First Amendment’s ban on ‘‘laws respecting an establishment of religion’’.

‘‘Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute,’’ he wrote.

‘‘It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation.’’

Much of Gregory’s opinion recited statements from candidate Trump, including his call for a ‘‘Muslim ban’’, and comments since his election that blamed Muslims for the threat of terrorism.

Those ‘‘statements, taken together, provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated’’ the travel order, Gregory wrote: ‘‘President Trump’s desire to exclude Muslims from the United States.’’

That impermissible motivation tainted both the original version of the order, which Trump issued during his first week in office, and a revised version issued in early March, the court said.

The three dissenters faulted the majority for ignoring Supreme Court rulings that called for deference to presidential authority over immigration. – TNS