Federal appeals court refuses

[Sysop3]

Feb 9, 2017 20:17:17 GMT -5 Sysop3 said:

Federal appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump travel ban



SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court refused Thursday to reinstate President Donald Trump's ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations, dealing another legal setback to the new administration's immigration policy.

In a unanimous decision , the panel of three judges from the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block a lower-court ruling tha
t suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S.

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seems likely and would put the decision in the hands of a divided court that has a vacancy. Trump's nominee, Neil Gorsuch, could not be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.

Moments after the ruling was released, Trump tweeted, "SEE YOU IN COURT," adding that "THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"

The appeals panel said the government presented no evidence to explain the urgent need for the executive order to take effect immediately. The judges noted compelling public interests on both sides.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination."

The court rejected the administration's claim that it did not have the authority to review the president's executive order.

"There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy," the court said.

While they did not rule on the actual merits of the states' argument that the travel ban was intended to target Muslims, the judges rejected the government's claim that the court should not consider statements by Trump or his advisers about wishing to enact such a ban. Considering those remarks, the judges said, falls within well-established legal precedent.

Last week, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation's refugee program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The states said Trump's travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump's campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

The appeals court sided with the states on every issue save one: the argument that the lower court's temporary restraining order could not be appealed. While under 9th Circuit precedent such orders are not typically reviewable, the panel ruled that due to the intense public interest at stake and the uncertainty of how long it would take to obtain a further ruling from the lower court, it was appropriate to consider the federal government's appeal.

Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said the "million-dollar question" is whether the Trump administration would appeal to the Supreme Court.

That could run the risk of having only eight justices to hear the case, which could produce a tie and leave the lower-court ruling in place.

"There's a distinct risk in moving this too quickly," Blackman said. "But we're not in a normal time, and Donald Trump is very rash. He may trump, pardon the figure of speech, the normal rule."

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday. The judges hammered away at the administration's claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states' argument that it targeted Muslims.

"I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected," Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

Only 15 percent of the world's Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.

"Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?" Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

After the ban was put on hold, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.

The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the Supreme Court would take up the issue. The administration also could change the order, including changing its scope or duration.


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/federal-appeals-court-refuses-to-reinstate-trump-travel-ban/ar-AAmMFn8?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

[Sysop3]

If we don't see more tweets DURING THE NIGHT, my first thought will be that they have sedated him and put him to bed!

[annaj26]

US court rebuffs Trump bid to lift travel-ban freeze

Posted by Vento on 10th February 2017 in International News


A federal appeals court unanimously refused to reinstate President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, issuing a sharp rebuke in a ruling likely destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump was defiant, tweeting 26 minutes later, “SEE YOU IN COURT. THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” He told White House reporters the decision was “political.”

The 29-page ruling from a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded roundly that the government failed to make its case that a temporary freeze on the ban should be lifted, and called into question presidential power to limit immigration in the way Trump did.

The judges rebuffed the contention that the states of Washington and Minnesota had no right to sue in the matter — and rejected the argument that courts have no authority to review an executive branch decision on immigration policy.

That notion “runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” according to the jurists, two of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, one by a Republican. The court announced the decision in an unsigned opinion, making it impossible for Trump, who has tweeted criticisms of the judicial system in this case, to single out one of them.

With his Jan. 27 executive order, issued without warning, Trump was making good on campaign promises to stop Muslims from entering the country to defuse the threat of Islamist terrorism by halting the flow of those who he said might be secretly planning attacks. It has been the most consequential act of a young and aggressive administration that wants to minimize America’s engagement with the world, roiling global politics in the process.

It spurred protests across the U.S. and a flurry of lawsuits, with the one from the states of Washington and Minnesota the first to reach an appeals court.

Reaction to the panel’s decision was predictably divided. David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator who worked for two Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, called it “deplorable” and said “it goes way beyond this executive order” in its commentary.

“It’s nothing less than a blatant and unprecedented aggrandizement of judicial power in the foreign affairs sphere at the expense of the executive branch and Congress,” he said. “It will not stand.”

Immigration advocates and other legal scholars lauded it, with Stephen Wasby, a professor at State University of New York in Albany, saying it was “a wake-up call for the Trump administration.”

In response to Trump’s tweet, Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, tweeted, “We already saw you in court. You lost. And we’re not sick of winning yet, Mr. President.”

The appeals court cautioned that its analysis was preliminary, emphasising that its task was only to decide whether a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle in the states’ suit should be lifted or kept in place, “in light of the relative hardship and public interest.”

Even if the high court weighs in, the issue at hand is a narrow one and the underlying case is at an early stage. Robart must still analyse evidence and hear arguments to determine if the executive order violates the Constitution. The Supreme Court could intervene now to allow Trump to temporarily resume the ban, and perhaps later take the case to decide to uphold or reverse further rulings that deal more directly with the substance of the arguments.

An immediate appeal would come before a divided eight-justice court that is awaiting approval of Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Reversing Thursday’s ruling would require a five-vote majority.

The prospective ninth justice told more than one senator he was dismayed by the president’s attacks on the judiciary, including Robart. In Twitter posts, Trump has excoriated him as a “so-called judge” and called his temporary restraining order “ridiculous.”

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said the administration was reviewing the appeals court decision and considering its options.

The White House could opt to rewrite and reissue the ban, applying it more narrowly to exempt people with so-called green cards, he said. “I think the way to turn this around would be to re-frame the executive order.”

The three appeals court judges rejected almost all of the government’s arguments, saying the administration had delivered no proof any immigrant from the seven countries has ever carried out a terrorist attack on the U.S. Though they said they agreed that “the government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” they said the administration “has done little more than reiterate that fact.”

Trump’s order set off chaos as companies, universities, citizens and refugees struggled with the ramifications. More than 1,200 people were “recommended denial of boarding” on planes headed for the U.S. as of Feb. 2, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Since Robart temporarily halted enforcement on Feb. 3, people affected have been rushing to the U.S.

The order barred Syrian refugees indefinitely, and blocked for 120 days all others fleeing their homelands claiming persecution or fear of violence. No citizens of Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya or Sudan could enter the U.S. for 90 days.


maltawinds.com/2017/02/10/us-court-rebuffs-trump-bid-lift-travel-ban-freeze/

[annaj26]

I can't help it. Every time I read more news about this, I imagine Trump being told.

He's always this old, fattish dude without his wig, throwing a temper tantrum ("SEE YOU IN COURT"), drooling and farting, while a room full of people try to calm him down. ugh