US migration legal wrangle
DECISION SOON ON ORDER SUSPENDING BAN ON VISITORS FROM SEVEN COUNTRIES Nearly 300 law professors and 130 Silicon Valley firms submit arguments.
Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration has legal experts grappling with a key question: how broad is the US president’s reach when it comes to shaping migration policy?
Trump’s decree slapped a blanket ban on entry for nationals of seven predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days and barred all refugees for 120 days. Refugees from Syria were blocked indefinitely. But a federal judge issued a temporary nationwide suspension of the president’s order, which the US government swiftly appealed.
The ultimate ruling in the case could clear up confusion regarding Trump’s executive reach and leave a lasting legal impact. There is a chance the case will go all the way to the Supreme Court, the nation’s top bench that is the final interpreter of US constitutional law.
For now, attention is on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, as it weighs the order temporarily halting the ban nationwide, issued by Seattle federal judge James Robart.
A hearing before three judges on the court took place on Tuesday. As a federal judge, Robart’s ruling has nationwide validity. The Trump administration has challenged Robart’s ruling by filing an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals saying that suspending the ban harms national security.
The primary plaintiffs are two Democratic-leaning states that border Canada: Washington, where Robart sits, and Minnesota. They were backed in a court brief filed by 16 state attorneys general. A number of groups have filed briefs backing the states’ efforts, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Centre, which monitors extremism in the US, and the HIAS refugee protection organisation.
Nearly 300 law professors and about 130 Silicon Valley firms have also submitted arguments supporting Robart’s opinion. Trump has dismissed Robart as “a so-called judge” and voiced confidence his ruling would be overturned.
Trump justifies his decree by invoking Article II of the Constitution, which grants the president authority to direct immigration policy and foreign affairs. The US government has defended the president’s travel ban as a “lawful exercise” of his authority and claims the federal court erred in barring enforcement of it. Government lawyers are bolstering this argument by saying the judiciary is unqualified to decide on national security matters. – AFP