A United States appeals court on Monday left in place a block on President Donald Trump's travel ban targeting citizens from six Muslim majority nations - the latest in a string of judicial blows for the controversial measure.
In its ruling Monday, the appeals court said U.S. Code 1182 (f) requires that "the President exercise his authority only after meeting the precondition of finding that entry of an alien or class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States".
"Immigration, even for the president, is not a one-person show", it said. "We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress", the judges said.
All three of the judges on the Ninth Circuit panel were appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton.
The judges said the government had failed to prove "any link between an individual's nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism", and cited a June 5 tweet by Trump to back their argument.
"Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the "countries" that are inherently risky, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President's 'travel ban, '" the judge wrote.
Supreme Court to immediately reinstate Trump's executive order and to consider the legality in an appeal of the ruling by the 4th Circuit.
The suits by Hawaii and the Maryland challengers argued that the order violated federal immigration law and a section of the Constitution's First Amendment that prohibits the government from favoring or disfavoring any particular religion.
Monday's decision from the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed that ruling, reversing only the lower court's injunction against the administration conducting inter-agency reviews of its vetting procedures.
She said she did not expect the Supreme Court to consider the case before the fall, making it hard for the administration to defend its argument that the travel ban was urgently needed.
Trump supporter: Comey throws 'four groups under the bus,' including himself
Yet Gerhardt questioned the significance of Comey's opinion about his dismissal. "One witness talking about another witness". He painted a picture of an overbearing president whom he did not trust and who pressured him to stop the FBI Flynn probe.
Another federal appeals court has upheld a decision blocking President Donald Trump's revised travel ban.
"Frankly, I think any lawyer worth their salt 100 per cent agrees that the president's fully within his rights and his responsibilities to do what is necessary to protect the country", spokesman Sean Spicer said.
The state says the policy is unconstitutional because it shows anti-Muslim bias.
Monday's decision centers on an executive order to temporarily suspend the admission of refugees to the USA and limit travel from some majority-Muslim countries.
The decision came just ahead of a deadline for states challenging the ban to submit briefings before the US Supreme Court in response to the Trump administration's request that the nine justices hear the case. After the courts roundly criticized the original ban, the current revised edition was released in March.
"The Order does not tie these nationals in any way to terrorist organizations within the six designated countries", they wrote. The high court is also considering the government's appeal of a similar injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland, but has yet to decide if it will take up the cases. In a footnote, they said they "need not address" claims of religious discrimination to rule on the injunction.
"Judge Richard Paez asked [acting Solicitor General Jeffrey] Wall what separates Trump's executive order from the World War II-era mass imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, which was also initiated by an executive order from President Roosevelt and justified on national security grounds".
Trump's executive order also temporarily puts a halt to America's refugee program and reduces the number of refugees to be admitted this year to 50,000, instead of the 110,000 planned by the Obama administration.
That went one step farther than the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which only upheld the part of the measure naming the specific countries. "Unfortunately, this injunction prevents the president from fully carrying out his Article II duties and has a chilling effect on security operations overall".
Comments