Court rejects plea to restore Trump's travel ban

A federal appeals court early Sunday rejected a request by the Justice Department to immediately restore President Trump’s targeted travel ban, deepening a legal showdown over his authority to tighten the nation’s borders in the name of protecting Americans from terrorism.
 
In the legal back and forth over the travel ban, the United States District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco said a reply from the Trump administration was now due on Monday.
 
The ruling meant that refugees and travellers from seven predominantly Muslim nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — who were barred by the president would, for now, continue to be able to enter the country. After a Federal District Court blocked Trump’s order, the Justice Department appealed the ruling late Saturday, saying that the president had the constitutional authority to order the ban and that the court ruling “second-guesses the president’s national security judgment.”
 
On Saturday night, as Trump arrived at a Red Cross gala at Mar-a-Lago, his waterfront Florida resort, where he was spending the first getaway weekend of his presidency, reporters asked him if he was confident he would prevail in the government’s appeal. “We’ll win,” he replied. “For the safety of the country, we’ll win.”
 
The legal maneuvering led Trump to lash out at Judge James Robart of the Federal District Court in Seattle throughout the day, prompting criticism that the president had failed to respect the judicial branch and its power to check on his authority.
 
In a Twitter post on Saturday, Trump wrote, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”
 
The Justice Department’s filing sought to have the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit block the judge’s decision and asked that the lower court’s ruling be stayed pending the appeal.
 
In its argument for an appeal, the Justice Department had said the president had an “unreviewable authority” to suspend the entry of any class of foreigners. It said the ruling by Judge Robart was too broad, “untethered” to the claims of the state of Washington, and in conflict with a ruling by another federal district judge, in Boston, who had upheld the order.
 
The Justice Department argued that the president acted well within his constitutional authority. Blocking the order, it concluded, “immediately harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the President, based on his national security judgment.”
 
Judge Robart, who was appointed by President George W Bush, declared in his ruling on Friday that “there’s no support” for the administration’s argument that “we have to protect the US from individuals” from the affected countries.
 
His ruling also barred the administration from enforcing its limits on accepting refugees. The State Department said Saturday that refugees, including Syrians, could begin arriving as early as Monday. Syrians had faced an indefinite ban under the executive order. His ruling applied nationwide.
 
Ban overturned, for now
 

• The ruling deepens a legal showdown over US President’s authority to tighten the nation’s borders in the name of protecting Americans from terrorism
• Refugees and travellers from seven predominantly Muslim nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — would, continue to be able to enter the country
• The Justice Department argued locking the order “immediately harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the President, based on his national security judgment”

 

© 2017 The New York Times News Service