Trump calls court decision on travel ban ‘disgraceful’

In an otherwise relatively cautious and technical ruling, the three judges on the 9th Circuit panel reserved their strongest language for defending the role of the courts against what they saw as executive overreach.

“There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy”, the panel wrote, referring to the government’s argument that the judiciary could not review an Executive Order dealing with issues of foreign policy, immigration, and national security.

President Donald Trump said Thursday’s federal appellate court ruling against reinstating his refugee and immigration order was a “political decision” that jeopardized national security.

Trump’s administration says the ban is necessary for the USA national security in the face of what it calls terror threats from the seven countries, a claim that judges want evidence to be proved.

President Donald Trump promised to fight on in a defiant tweet minutes after the decision was released. Trump wrote on Twitter. He said he had not yet conferred with his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, on the matter.

He could elevate this to the Supreme Court – but there is a problem. “The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous decision effectively granted everything we sought”.

The states said Trump’s travel ban harmed people, businesses and universities.

The executive order led to airport chaos and thousands of visa holders and permanent residents were detained on arrival in the United States.

Finally, while the order did not entirely reject the government’s claims that the order did not violate Establishment Clause and equal protection provisions prohibiting religious discrimination, it did not accept them either, deferring the issue until it is weighed by Judge Robart, who issued the order putting the ban on hold. Washington pointed out that Trump had on many occasions stated his intentions to enact a ban on Muslims entering the United States.

The San Francisco federal appeals court’s ruling on Mr Trump’s executive order – issued on
Jan 27 with no prior warning and suspended by a lower court a week later – capped a turbulent first three weeks of his presidency.

The court thoroughly explained why it chose to side against Trump’s so-called Muslim ban, and The New York Times has a great coverage of the verdict.

The court said the government had not justified suspending travel from the seven countries.

Seeing as due process is one of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, it’s a problem that Trump’s executive order didn’t provide for it. As the case progressed, the administration supplemented its request for categorical vindication with a backup plea for at least a partial victory.

He originally proposed as a temporary ban on all Muslims, and has voiced frustration at the legal challenge to his order.

They judges also did not shy away from the larger constitutional questions raised by the order, rejecting the administration’s claim of presidential authority, questioning its motives and concluding that the order was unlikely to survive legal challenges. He indicated that if a terrorist attack occurred that it would be the court’s fault and that terrorists were streaming into the country as a result of the decision.