Appeals Court Deals New Blow To Donald Trumps Travel Ban Targeting Muslims

[Night_Hawk]

Appeals Court Deals New Blow To Donald Trumps Travel Ban Targeting Muslims


The presidents beleaguered executive order wont be reinstated, and will remain stuck in the courts for a while.

Cristian Farias Legal Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post X
In a major setback for the Trump administration, a federal appeals court on Thursday declined its urgent request to restore the controversial executive order restricting refugees and travel by immigrants from a number of Muslim-majority countries.

Rejecting arguments that the government would be irreparably harmed if the judicial system reviewed President Donald Trumps immigration ban, which he premised on his authority over national security matters, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit determined unanimously that the judiciary has a proper role in safeguarding peoples rights.

To the contrary, while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches, the court said, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Governments authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Courts own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals, even in times of war.

Citing an important Bush-era Supreme Court precedent on national security, the 9th Circuit took issue with the Trump administrations argument that it had no business or power to review the legality of the presidents executive order ― or that it would violate the separation of powers for the court to do so.

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy, the court said in the ruling. The court also said that the Trump administration pointed to no evidence showing a need for the executive order.

The three judges who participated in the appeal ― U.S. Circuit Judges Richard Clifton, William Canby and Michelle Friedland ― did not sign their names to the opinion, but instead issued a per curiam order, possibly to avoid being singled out by Trump, who has taken to lashing out against judges ruling against his travel ban.

The presidents response to the ruling on Twitter was in all caps.




We have seen him in court twice, and were two for two, Bob Ferguson, attorney general for the state of Washington, which alongside Minnesota challenged Trumps order, said at a news conference Thursday night. He encouraged Trump to tear up this executive order and start over.

The Justice Department, which normally doesnt comment on ongoing litigation, said it was considering its options.

The 9th Circuit decision effectively keeps Trumps order from being enforced, which means one of his signature policy initiatives will remain in limbo as the litigation proceeds before thefederal judge in Seattle who temporarily blocked the orders implementation. The appeals court heard arguments in a high-stakes hearing on Tuesday.

The court declined the Trump administrations request to limit the geographic scope of the initial court ruling against the ban, which put the brakes on the executive order everywhere in the United States. And notably, the court observed that the rights of non-citizens here, or those who have non-citizen family members abroad, would be affected if the ban was reinstated.

The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions, the appeals court said, suggesting that Trump or Congress could rewrite the order to avoid constitutional pitfalls.

Critically, the ruling was not on the merits of the order, but only on the technical question of whether the judge who put a national hold on the travel ban, U.S. District Judge James Robart, followed the proper procedure for temporary restraining orders ― a kind of relief that is typically not appealable. The 9th Circuit determined that the unusual circumstances of this case and the governments vigorous defense of the travel ban meant the appeals judges could step in.

That still didnt keep the 9th Circuit from noting that the two states fast-moving lawsuit presents serious allegations and significant constitutional questions about religious discrimination against Muslims.

Though the judges declined to express a view on those issues, they noted that numerous statements by Trump promising a Muslim ban, and similar remarks that go beyond the letter of the executive order, could be used for weighing the orders constitutionality at a later stage.

In an early-morning tweet prior to a law enforcement conference Wednesday, Trump appeared to prejudge the 9th Circuits outcome and call into question the motivations of the judges who considered his travel ban.

I dont ever want to call a court biased, so I wont call it biased, Trump said during a gathering of chiefs of police. And we havent had a decision yet. But courts seem to be so political, and it would be so great for a justice system if they would be able to ... do whats right. And that has to do with the security of our country, which is so important.

Robart, the Seattle-based federal judge who on Feb. 3 put a temporary nationwide restraining order on Trumps travel ban, said in his earlier ruling that theres a high likelihood the executive order would cause irreparable harm to Washington and Minnesota if he didnt block it.

Amid an avalanche of similar lawsuits across the country, the two states sued in federal court last week, claiming that the travel restrictions violate, among other things, their residents constitutional rights to religious freedom and equal protection of the laws. Once Robart put the ban on hold, signaling that the states may have a strong case on the merits, the administration quickly appealed.

Scores of states, tech companies and organizations weighed in on the controversy ahead of Tuesdays YouTube-streamed 9th Circuit hearing, during which the two sides argued why the travel ban should or shouldnt remain in force, and whether, under the Constitution, Trump has near-unreviewable authority that the courts arent allowed to second-guess.

Ahead of Thursdays ruling, Robart issued a scheduling order instructing the states and the Trump administration how the case would move forward. Washington and Minnesota must submit a legal brief on Thursday, the Trump administrations response brief is due next Wednesday, and then the states must reply by next Friday. Robart has yet to schedule a new hearing.

When he does, hell determine whether his original restraining order should become a preliminary injunction, which, if granted, would leave Trumps travel ban on hold for even longer ― a result that would almost certainly be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

But at this early stage, an emergency appeal by the Trump administration to the Supreme Court would face a big hurdle. Five justices would need to agree to reverse the 9th Circuit, and since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year, the court remains one member short.

In the interim, lawyers for Washington and Minnesota are already bracing for the next stage. In a letter to the 9th Circuit filed with the court on Thursday, the states said theyre ready to submit more evidence in the lower court to support their case ― and their contention that Trumps executive order causes harm to their sovereign interests.

Do you have information you want to share with the Huffington Post? Heres how.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-muslim-ban-appeals-ruling_us_589b49cfe4b09bd304bf279e?
​

 

[Night_Hawk]

Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss

From left, Abdulmajeed and his wife, Baraa, Syrian refugees, were greeted by her father at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago on Tuesday. They were allowed to enter the country after a federal judge blocked key parts of President Trump’s immigration ban. Credit Alyssa Schukar for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals panel on Thursday unanimously rejected President Trump’s bid to reinstate his ban on travel from seven largely Muslim nations, a sweeping rebuke of the administration’s claim that the courts have no role to act as a check on the president.

The three-judge panel, suggesting that the ban did not advance national security, said, for instance, that the administration had pointed to “no evidence” that anyone from the seven nations had committed terrorism in the United States.

The ruling also rejected the administration’s claim that courts are powerless to review a president’s national security determinations. Judges have a crucial role to play in a constitutional democracy, said the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco.

“It is beyond question,” the unsigned decision said, “that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.”

The court acknowledged that Mr. Trump was owed deference on his immigration and national security policy determinations, but it said he was asking for something more.

Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
Stories about President Trump’s administration.
Coretta Scott King’s 1986 Statement to the Senate About Jeff Sessions
FEB 8
Trump Turns Kuwait’s ‘Visa Ban’ Into Big News, but It Wasn’t Quite New
FEB 8
Trump Says Nordstrom Treated His Daughter ‘So Unfairly’; Fireworks Before Final Vote on Jeff Sessions
FEB 8
Love, Interrupted: A Travel Ban Separates Couples
FEB 8
Republican Senators Vote to Formally Silence Elizabeth Warren
FEB 7
See More

“The government has taken the position,” the decision said, “that the president’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.”

DOCUMENT
Ninth Circuit’s Decision on Trump’s Travel Ban
Read the text of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refusal to reinstate President Trump's travel ban.


OPEN DOCUMENT
Within minutes of the ruling, Mr. Trump angrily vowed to reporters at the White House and in a Twitter message to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter.

He told reporters that the ruling was “a political decision” and predicted that his administration would win an appeal “in my opinion, very easily.” He said he had not yet conferred with his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, on the matter.

The Supreme Court remains short-handed and could deadlock. A 4-to-4 tie there would leave the appeals court’s ruling in place.

The travel ban, one of the first executive orders Mr. Trump issued after taking office, suspended worldwide refugee entry into the United States. It also barred visitors from seven Muslim-majority nations for up to 90 days to give federal security agencies time to impose stricter vetting processes.

Immediately after it was issued, the ban spurred chaos at airports nationwide as hundreds of foreign travelers found themselves stranded at immigration checkpoints, and protests erupted against a policy that critics derided as un-American. The State Department said up to 60,000 foreigners’ visas had been canceled in the days immediately after the ban was imposed.

Trial judges around the country have blocked aspects of Mr. Trump’s executive order, but no other case has yet reached an appeals court.

Thursday’s decision reviewed a ruling issued last Friday by Judge James L. Robart, a federal judge in Seattle. Judge Robart blocked the key parts of the order, allowing immigrants and travelers who had been barred entry to come into the United States.


U.S. & POLITICS By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 1:08
Washington Attorney General Applauds Decision
Video
Washington Attorney General Applauds Decision
Bob Ferguson, the attorney general of Washington State, said the rebuke of Donald J. Trump’s travel ban by a federal appeals court panel was a "complete victory." By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. Photo by Associated Press. Watch in Times Video
Embed
ShareTweet
That case, filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota, is at an early stage, and the appeals court ruled on the narrow question of whether to stay a lower court’s temporary restraining order blocking the travel ban.

In rejecting the administration’s request for a stay, the court said, “The government submitted no evidence to rebut the states’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.”

The court said the government had not justified suspending travel from the seven countries. “The government has pointed to no evidence,” the decision said, “that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.”

The members of the three-judge panel were Judge Michelle T. Friedland, appointed by President Barack Obama; Judge William C. Canby Jr., appointed by President Jimmy Carter; and Judge Richard R. Clifton, appointed by President George W. Bush.

They said the states were likely to succeed at the end of the day because Mr. Trump’s order appeared to violate the due process rights of lawful permanent residents, people holding visas and refugees.

The court said the administration’s legal position in the case had been a moving target. It noted that Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, had issued “authoritative guidance” several days after the executive order came out, saying it did not apply to lawful permanent residents. But the court said that “we cannot rely” on that statement.

“The White House counsel is not the president,” the decision said, “and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the executive departments. Moreover, in light of the government’s shifting interpretations of the executive order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings.”

Photo

The activist Michael Petrelis outside of the Ninth United States Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday after the ruling was announced. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
In its briefs and in the arguments before the panel on Tuesday, the administration’s position evolved. As the case progressed, the administration supplemented its request for categorical vindication with a backup plea for at least a partial victory.

At most, a Justice Department brief said, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future” should be allowed to enter the country despite the ban.

The court rejected that request, saying that people in the United States without authorization have due process rights, as do citizens with relatives who wish to travel to the United States.

First Draft
Every weekday, get political news and analysis from the staff of The New York Times.

Sign Up

Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

SEE SAMPLE MANAGE EMAIL PREFERENCES PRIVACY POLICY
The court discussed but did not decide whether the executive order violated the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion by disfavoring Muslims.

It noted that the states challenging the executive order “have offered evidence of numerous statements by the president about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban.’” And it said, rejecting another administration argument, that it was free to consider evidence about the motivation behind laws that draw seemingly neutral distinctions.

But the court said it would defer a decision on the question of religious discrimination. “In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim,” the decision said, “we reserve consideration of these claims.”

The court also refused to narrow the geographical scope of the trial court’s nationwide injunction, noting that a Texas court had issued a nationwide injunction blocking Mr. Obama’s immigration plan.

GRAPHIC
Trump’s Immigration Ban: Who Is Barred and Who Is Not
A wide array of people are affected by President Trump’s order.


OPEN GRAPHIC
“It is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the executive order,” the court said.

“The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions,” the decision said. “For now, it is enough for us to conclude that the government has failed to establish that it will likely succeed on its due process argument in this appeal.”

The court acknowledged “the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages.”

“On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies,” the decision said. “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.”

“These competing public interests,” the court said, “do not justify a stay.”

The World Relief Corporation, one of the agencies that resettles refugees in the United States, is scheduled to receive 275 newcomers in the next week, many of whom will be reunited with family. The agency will arrange for housing and jobs for the refugees in cities including Seattle; Spokane, Wash.; and Sacramento.

“We have families that have been separated for years by terror, war and persecution,” said Scott Arbeiter, the president of the organization. “Some family members had already been vetted and cleared and were standing with tickets, and were then told they couldn’t travel. So the hope of reunification was crushed, and now they will be admitted. That’s fabulous news for those families.”


1310
COMMENTS
The court ruling did not affect one part of the executive order: the cap of 50,000 refugees to be admitted in the 2017 fiscal year. That is down from the 110,000 ceiling put in place under Mr. Obama. The order also directed the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security to prioritize refugee claims made by persecuted members of religious minorities.

As of Thursday, that means the United States will only be allowed to accept about 16,000 more refugees this fiscal year. Since Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, 33,929 refugees have been admitted, 5,179 of them Syrians.

Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed reporting.

Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter @adamliptak.

Follow The New York Times’s politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/appeals-court-trump-travel-ban.html?hp&_r=0

 

[ahmedameen786]

Hillary Clinton ✔@HillaryClinton

3-0
​

6:17 PM - 9 Feb 2017

• 76,75076,750 Retweets
• 196,339196,339 likes

​

​

The states of Washington and Minnesota had challenged the ban.
"Bottom line, this is a complete victory for the state of Washington," said state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous decision effectively granted everything we sought."
Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell, who argued the case, responded to Trump's tweet on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront."
"The irony from our perspective is that we've seen him in court twice now, and we've won both times. It's not like it doesn't count until you get to the Supreme Court," Purcell said.
The Justice Department is reviewing the decision, it said in a statement.
But given that the Supreme Court currently lacks its ninth member, there a real chance of a 4-4 split on the bench along ideological lines, which would have the effect of affirming the ruling of the 9th Circuit, inflicting a more permanent blow to the new administration.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-immigration/index.html

 

[MUNSIF]

is bechare ka ghar to baste hi ujar gaya .:lol:

 

[such786]

there are many other ways he will used to delay visa for Muslim countries through immigration and home land security.