The government has appealed that finding with the US Supreme Court.
Both courts were broadly skeptical of the government's argument that the president - who has wide latitude on issues of immigration - was well within his rights to issue the executive order.
In particular, they argued, the order exceeded the scope of the president's "broad authority to suspend the entry of aliens or classes of aliens" because the administration had failed to prove that banning more than 180 million people from entry based on their national origin would be detrimental to U.S. interests. "The 9th Circuit opinion reaches the same conclusion-that the order is in large part invalid-but takes a totally different route", she said, comparing it the to the 4th Circuit ruling, which found the ban unconstitutional.
The court's ruling is both practically and symbolically important. Arthur is confident the president will win on that appeal as well.
The San Francisco-based federal court rejected Washington's attempt to undo a Hawaii federal judge's decision to block Trump's executive order, saying that the president violated USA immigration law by discriminating against people based on their nationality.
"Immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show", they added.
This revised version of the executive order suspended refugee admissions for 120 days and barred people from six majority-Muslim nations from entering the United States for 90 days while the administration reviewed vetting procedures.
Unraveling the case of Draymond Green and the disappearing technical foul
For several minutes, however, the only people who seemed to know that in the entire arena were the three officials. But I thought I heard the announcer say, the PA announcer say that it was on Draymond.
Last week, Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway's husband, George Conway, said the president's tweets on legal matters such as the travel ban "seriously undermine" the White House's agenda. The 4th Circuit concluded that such discrimination violated constitutional protections of religion that are enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Earlier, on June 1, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Apex Court to revive the ban and to block the Hawaii rulings.
The high court is considering a request to reinstate the policy and could act before the justices wind up their work at the end of June.
The three judges-Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald M. Gould and Richard Paez-were appointed by former President Clinton.
It's not just the "banned" predominantly Muslim nations that have seen a decline in the number of visas issued, Pakistan saw a staggering decline too. It said the Trump administration failed to show that people, including refugees, coming from mainly Muslim nations would be detrimental to USA interests.
He too faced some hard questioning, including queries on whether the lower-court decision was too broad.
"The ruling specifically pointed to Trump's tweets from earlier this month, when he called for the need for a "TRAVEL BAN for certain unsafe countries" and chided those who were too politically correct to label it a "travel ban". The three-judge panel largely upheld the decision of Hawaii Judge Derrick Watson, who considered that the basic provisions of the order probably violated the Constitution by discriminating against Muslims.
Comments