TRUMP REMAINS DEFIANT AS TRAVEL BAN BATTED DOWN
A federal appeals court last night refused to reinstate a controversial travel ban aimed at seven Muslim majority nations, dealing President Trump the biggest setback of his young administration and setting up a potential Supreme Court showdown over the future of the tough antiterrorism executive order.
“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” Trump tweeted in all caps within minutes of the decision.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — made up of two Democratic appointees and one Republican — unanimously ruled to continue suspending Trump’s temporary travel order, signed last month, which created confusion and drew protests at airports nationwide.
The decision means noncitizens from seven Muslim-majority nations, as well as refugees worldwide can continue entering the U.S. as before.
But the battle between the Trump White House, which believes tough measures are necessary to protect the country from radical Islamic terrorism, and critics, who argue the ban is an unconstitutional assault on the nation’s history of welcoming immigrants, is far from over.
Trump could withdraw the executive order and issue a new, narrower directive designed to pass muster with the federal court.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has long been blasted as too liberal by conservatives, with critics noting it has a 77 percent reversal rate. So the Trump administration also could appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the high court is currently in an ideological 4-4 dead-
lock as it awaits the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement.
If the eight justices split on the travel ban, the lower court ruling would stand.
The Ninth Circuit Court judges appeared unconvinced that the risk of an imminent terrorist attack rises to the point of reinstating the travel ban.
“The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the ruling read.
But the judges did appear to sympathize with the state of Washington’s argument that the ban had hurt university employees and students, separated families and stranded studyabroad residents.
“These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms,” they wrote.
“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. ... When considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justify a stay.”
In a potentially damaging blow, the court said that in determining whether the executive order amounts to a Muslim ban, it could take into consideration Trump’s comments during the presidential campaign.
That could serve as a warning to the president that words used during campaigns and on Twitter could affect legal cases moving forward.
But in the end, the court did not make a determination on the larger issue of whether the order is in fact a Muslim ban.