A federal appeals court in San Francisco has unanimously upheld a temporary suspension of President Trump’s executive order that restricted travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.
Advertisement
An administration official familiar with the process tells CNN the possibility of issuing a new or revised executive order is being contemplated, but nothing has been confirmed. Individuals in transit were thrown into a legal limbo at airports.
A federal judge in Seattle suspended the order last Friday and many travelers who had been waylaid by the ban quickly moved to travel to the United States while it was in limbo.
But several U.S. states, which argued against the ban, said it had harmed thousands of state residents by splitting up families, delaying students hoping to travel, and stopping foreign travel by green card holders and their relatives. Trump tweeted within minutes of the appeals court ruling. “We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country”.
Trump’s gripes with the judicial branch of government were echoed by DOJ lawyer August E. Flentje. He is not a candidate. That action sparked nationwide protests and prompted legal action on many fronts.
He said the ruling was “a political decision” and predicted that his administration would win an appeal “in my opinion, very easily”, the New York Times said.
What the president says – and tweets – will not go unnoticed by the courts. No matter their ruling this week, the case is likely to end up at the Supreme Court.
This means that the Trump administration will attempt to defend the benefits and constitutionality of the travel ban in the lower courts.
But the ruling does not affect one part of Mr Trump’s controversial executive order: a cap of 50,000 refugees to be admitted in the current fiscal year, down from the ceiling of 110,000 established under his predecessor, Barack Obama.
The statement represents an embarrassing climbdown for Trump, who has insisted that the order was well drafted and who has nevertheless vowed to fight on in the courts.
Advertisement
The government failed to show either, the ninth circuit wrote. Keeping the stay allows the status quo. Travel and refugee resettlement was allowed to resume during the interim. “We are grateful that we can get back to work resettling refugees who have fled the terrors of war and violence”. “It is well established that evidence of goal beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims”. But that would take patience, something that seems elusive for this president.
