Here's what the Supreme Court might look at — Travel ban case

President Donald Trump talks as he meets with French President Emmanuel Macron at the U.S. ambassadors residence in Brussels Thursday

Federal appeals court largely maintains freeze of Trump's travel ban

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump's revised Muslim Ban, issued in March and lambasted by rights groups, is unconstitutional.

Another case against the Trump's travel ban 2.0 is pending before the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Reacting to Thursday's decision, current Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an architect of the current ban, in a statement announced that the travel ban is "within his lawful authority to keep the Nation safe". The court has not indicated when it will rule, but the travel ban would not go into effect as long as one nationwide injunction remains in effect. In Thursday's decision, the chief judge writes that the travel ban "drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination".

Shortly after the ruling was released, Sessions said he is seeking a review of the case in the Supreme Court. Trump rewrote the ban after several legal defeats.

Although Trump said he would fight the ruling, he issued a revised executive order and did not appeal to the Supreme Court. The administration has cited the President's broad discretion over immigration policy, and argued that the country-based ban is not meant to single out a particular religion.

Gregory said that while Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to aliens, that power is not absolute.

Judge Gregory continues: "The campaign statements here are probative of goal because they are closely related in time, attributable to the primary decision maker, and specific and easily connected to the challenged action".

The statement noted that the three dissenting judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, explained that the executive order is a "constitutional exercise of the president's duty to protect our communities from terrorism".

Tillerson asks China to 'step up' on North Korea
"It's something close to our daily lives", said parent Kanako Ono, adding that news about North Korea and missile tests is always in newspapers and on TV.

"Because of their nature, campaign statements are unbounded resources by which to find intent of various kinds", he wrote. The administration argued it was not supposed to be permanent. "Evidence like the President's own promises on the campaign trail". The ban is supposed to block travel from six Muslim-majority countries including Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen for 90 days. There was also an indefinite ban on Syrian immigrants entering the United States. "Even after President Trump tried to scale it back and better hide his tracks, his Muslim ban still suffers from a fatal dose of religious animus".

Trump's first travel ban issued January 27 was aimed at seven countries and triggered chaos and protests across the travelers were stopped from boarding global flights and detained at airports for hours.

The White House also pointed to a dissent by Judge Dennis Shedd that said "the real losers in this case are the millions of individual Americans whose security is threatened on a daily basis by those who seek to do us harm". But Gregory said the court could take account of the comments.

It was more than plausible, he added, that the revised order's "stated national security interest was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for its religious objective".

CNN posts a portion of the ruling: "The evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, creates a compelling case that (the executive order's) primary objective is religious".

It takes a majority of the court, five votes, to put a lower court ruling on hold. As the court told him, that argument "is no silver bullet".

"We are confident that the president will prevail on appeal and particularly in the Supreme Court, if not the 9th Circuit".

Latest News