What's next in the legal fight over the travel ban

Kristopher Drake
June 14, 2017

In a ruling later Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also faulted the travel ban and upheld a judge's ruling that blocked the temporary ban on refugees as well.

The court's decision Monday follows a ruling last month by a Virginia panel that also upheld a nationwide injunction against Trump's revised executive order, based partly on the reasoning that the USA government can not establish a national religion.

Trump has been on the losing side in all four court rulings on the March order and has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency review.

Trump issued his initial travel ban on a Friday in late January, bringing chaos and protests to airports around the country.

The majority of those judges found that Trump's executive order "drips with religious intolerance" and that "the reasonable observer would likely conclude that EO-2's primary goal is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs".

The administration said the travel ban was needed to allow time to implement stronger vetting measures, although it has already rolled out some new requirements not blocked by courts, including additional questions for visa applicants.

The tweet formed part of a ruling that Mr Trump had not provided a legally necessary "rational explaining..."

Today's ruling says that President Donald Trump overreached his power when he issued the order, and that it is discriminatory.

After that order was blocked by courts, the White House issued a second executive order, omitting references to religion and specifically exempting green card holders.

Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall had previously maintained that the administration was forbidden from conducting "a review of the vetting procedures" with respect to the six countries the ban covered - but the Ninth Circuit concluded Monday that Watson "abused its discretion in enjoining inward-facing agency conduct because enjoining this conduct would not remedy the harms asserted by Plaintiffs". "It does not provide any link between an individual's nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism or their inherent dangerousness". The executive order also called for a 120-day ban on all refugees.

At the Supreme Court, anything is possible if you have five votes - a majority of the court. "S.C." he wrote on Twitter, referencing the US Supreme Court, which could act as soon as this week on his administration's request to reinstate the order.

The 9th Circuit's more narrow focus on immigration law may appeal to conservative justices on the Supreme Court who might be loath to extend their review beyond the text of the executive order to include the president's campaign statements about a Muslim ban, said David Levine, a professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.

Other reports by Ligue1talk

Discuss This Article