Trump’s bid to reinstate travel ban gets rejected

The order had caused unending confusion for many foreigners trying to reach the United States, prompted protests across the country and led to a series of court challenges. After confusion and protests at airports around the country, the Republican-led administration amended the ban on January 28, saying it would not impact green-card holders or people with permanent visa status in the U.S. It was awaiting further submissions from Washington and Minnesota states on Sunday, and from the government on Monday.

Friday’s ruling has also seen visa holders from the affected nations scramble to get flights to the United States, fearing they have a slim window to enter.

Citing the president’s “sovereign prerogative” to admit or exclude aliens, lawyers for the Department of Justice earlier told the court that the states of Washington and Minnesota should not have been allowed to challenge the ban, and that a judge was wrong to stop Trump’s executive order.

“The law is a powerful thing”.

Homeland Security says it has “suspended any and all actions” related to putting in place the terms of Trump’s order. Instead, the former officials argue, it “ultimately undermines the national security of the United States rather than making us safer”.

If it were to overturn the district court’s decision, another judge somewhere else in the United States could impose a new order, setting off a new cascade of court filings. It’s the law of the land, and when I hear that phrase, it’s the law of the land ’cause the court said it, I think, Did you guys pass ninth-grade civics for gosh sake?

Mr. Trump on January 27 signed an executive order suspending entry to the US for visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries-Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen-for at least 90 days, calling it a needed move to keep terrorists out of the country.

Nearly 100 big technolog companies filed a friend-of-the-court brief Monday morning asking the appeals court not to restore Trump’s order, arguing that the restriction “hinders the ability of American companies to attract great talent; increases costs imposed on business; makes it more hard for American firms to compete in the worldwide marketplace; and gives global enterprises a new, significant incentive to build operations – and hire new employees – outside the United States”.

The US state department is working with the Department of Homeland Security to work out how Friday’s ruling affects its operations, a spokesman told Reuters news agency, and will announce any changes affecting travellers as soon as information is available. Vice President Mike Pence, for one, asserted that a judge “certainly” has the right to halt Trump’s executive order. Lawyers pointed to dozens of speeches and statements Trump has made. Ferguson argues that the Executive Order violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, infringes individuals’ constitutional right to Due Process and contravenes the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. Critics say they are unjustified and discriminatory. “That certainly tends to poison the well for litigation”, said George Washington University Law Professor, Jonathan Turley. “Defendants now ask this Court to unleash chaos again by staying the district court order”.

There’s a similar split among Americans over the president’s refugee ban.

It is true that the ultimate source of the Trump executive order is his ill-advised call for a Muslim ban during the campaign.