Donald Trump’s travel ban blocked again by United States judge

The Justice Department filed a brief notice Friday saying that it would appeal the Maryland ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

Chief Justice John Marshall, in establishing the judiciary’s prerogative of judicial review in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, said, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”.

The first time a USA federal court issued a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump’s travel ban, the government filed an appeal the next day.

A federal judge in Maryland issued a narrower order blocking only the travel ban on citizens of six Muslim-majority nations. “They will take it because of its national importance”, he said.

“President Trump’s Muslim ban has fared miserably in the courts, and for good reason – it violates fundamental provisions of our constitution”, said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

Nonetheless, Hawaii district court judge Watson does not even address the Plenary Power Doctrine and simply acts as if this was a typical First Amendment or Discrimination case against a U.S. Citizen. He did not enjoin the refugee portion of the ban.

Chuang, an Obama appointee, wrote that he “should not, and will not, second-guess the conclusion that national security interests would be served by the travel ban”.

It argues that the ban is an extension of former President Barack Obama’s screening of travellers from the same six countries.

President Donald Trump’s travel ban has been blocked a second time. We’re going to take our case as far as it needs to go, including all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration won a small legal victory later on Thursday.

These rulings, like the earlier Ninth Circuit decision, miss a crucial fact, the dissenters said: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly on this exact question and found that courts can not look behind the “bona fide” reasons for an executive order on immigration to find constitutional violations lurking in the background.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that the second executive order contains numerous legal flaws of the first, and that Trump’s fixes are cosmetic and don’t address the legal issues posed by the ban. The challenge also alleges that the president, under the Refugee Act of 1980, can not downsize the number of refugees to be admitted in the middle of a fiscal year. The three-judge panel, which included two appointed by Democratic presidents and one by a Republican, issued a unanimous ruling.

A new challenge to the travel ban was filed today in San Francisco federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a US citizen married to a Syrian man and a graduate student who says he needs to collaborate with an Iranian physicist. “It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%”.

Trump said the decision by the judge in Hawaii was an example of what he described as “unprecedented judicial overreach”.

“Thus, it is more likely that the primary goal of the travel ban was grounded in religion”.

Chuang heard a challenge to the ban brought by refugee rights groups that claim it illegally targets a religious group based on Trump’s promises during last year’s presidential campaign to halt Muslim immigration. “And importantly, he issued a preliminary injunction, not just a (temporary restraining order), so the injunction will remain in place through trial, and not just for a couple of weeks”.

Watson said he intends to set an expedited hearing to determine whether it should be extended and the Justice Department has not yet made any moves to appeal the ruling.