Panel upholds stay of travel ban
‘See you in court’ tweets defiant U.S. president
SAN FRANCISCO • A U.S. federal appeals court refused Thursday to reinstate President Donald Trump’s ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim nations, dealing another legal setback to the new administration’s immigration policy.
In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges f rom the San Franciscobased 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travellers to enter the U.S.
An appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court seems almost certain after the president tweeted, “See you in court, the security of our nation is at stake.”
It would put the decision in the hands of a divided court that has a vacancy. Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, could not be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.
The appeals panel said the government presented no evidence to explain the urgent need for the executive order to take effect immediately.
The judges noted compelling public interests on both sides.
“On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.”
The court rejected the administration’s claim that it did not have the authority to review the president’s executive order.
“There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” the court said.
Last week, U. S. 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 program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.
After that decision, Trump called Robart a “so- called judge” and later tweeted, “Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”
And on Wednesday, in reference to the three appeals court judges, he said the “courts seem to be so political.”
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 U. S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.
Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday. The judges hammered away at the administration’s claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states’ argument that it targeted Muslims.
“I have trouble understanding why we’re supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected,” Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.
Only 15 per cent of the world’s Muslims are affected by the order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.
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 U. S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.
The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the Supreme Court would take up the issue. The administration also could change the order, including changing its scope or duration.