Home » Appeal court » Federal court rejects Trump’s travel ban, again

Federal court rejects Trump’s travel ban, again

By |

The order, rejecting the travel ban, says “immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show.”

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s demand for the travel ban on Monday. The federal court decided in line with the other courts that have blocked the president’s executive order Protecting the national from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.  This is seen as a major defeat for Trump’s proposed temporary ban for travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries.

“The President must make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States,”” the court order read. “Further, the [Executive] Order runs afoul of other provisions of the INA that prohibit nationality-based discrimination and require the President to follow a specific process when setting the annual cap on the admission of refugees.”

The order read that the president has overstepped his authority by issuing the proposed travel ban. “We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress,” the order stated.

The first executive order.

On January 27, Trump issued an executive order to immediately ban travelers from seven nations – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. The administration suspended the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days and executed an infinite ban on the refugees from Syria. It further decreased the number of refugees to 50,000 for the fiscal year 2017, which was otherwise 110,000. The court noticed that even the federal officials were skeptical how effectual the first executive order might prove.

The revised executive order.

Eventually, in March, Trump revised his first order and removed Iraq from the list of “dangerous” countries. Though other parts remained same. “Rather than continue with the litigation, the Government filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the underlying appeal after the President signed EO2 [Executive Order 2, the revised order]. On March 8, 2017, this court granted that motion, which substantially ended the story of EO1 [the first Executive Order],” the order acknowledged.

In addition, the court noticed that though the revised executive order stated that the nationals from the six countries have committed acts of terrorism, but it did not provide substantial evidence. “EO2 [revised executive order] does not discuss any instances of domestic terrorism involving nationals from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen,” the order explained.

The White House response.

In response, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on Monday that they are reviewing the court’s opinion. “We continue to be confident that the President’s executive order to protect this country is fully lawful and ultimately will be upheld by the Supreme Court,” Spicer said in a press briefing.

Earlier this month, the administration approached the Supreme Court after a defeat in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. That time, too, the White House contended that the ban is well within president’s authority.