Mercredi, 20 Février 2019
Latest news
Main » Judges Will Again Decide Fate Of Travel Ban

Judges Will Again Decide Fate Of Travel Ban

19 Mai 2017

This is the second time that the ninth circuit, which covers the western United States and is generally considered the most liberal of the appeals courts, has heard arguments over the travel ban. Is there any justification for that part of the order, he asked Katyal? Because of how the courts chose to proceed, a full slate of 13 judges heard the 4th Circuit arguments last week, while just three, all appointees of President Bill Clinton, will sit in Seattle.

Fourteen states - including Alabama, Arizona and Montana - and Mississippi's governor also urged the 9th Circuit to permit enforcement of Trump's directive.

Attorney Neal Katyal, who represented the plaintiffs, told the judges the president showed a "repeated pattern" of behavior that supports a discriminatory attitude toward Muslims, and a ruling in favor of the government would set a precedent for discrimination. A lot of them had to do with what the president has said on this issue and whether or not the judges should consider that in context. The panel consisted of Judge Ronald Gould, Judge Michael Hawkins, and Judge Richard Paez.

Katyal said "no" but said that Trump has never disavowed his past comments.

Wall tried at the appeals court to repeal the nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) imposed by US District Judge Derrick Watson. The second order was meant to overcome the legal problems posed by the original ban, but it was also suspended by judges before it could take effect on March 16.

Katyal responded that Trump could remedy his "taint" by taking a number of actions, including working with Congress to enact new measures. This search was encouraged again by the same Trump Administration lawyer, cautioning against tying the president's hands in reaction to a potential security threat. The courts have issued a stay on the executive order until it can be heard before the Appeals Courts and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wall added that there was no "affirmative showing of bad faith" by Trump.

A lawyer for President Donald Trump says he has clarified campaign rhetoric in which he called for a ban on Muslims.

But unlike the due process concerns driving the analysis in the last round, this time the different panel of judges appeared to wrestle with Trump's past statements about Muslims as it decides whether the lower court in Hawaii correctly blocked the revised ban. By focusing on nationality, Trump's Muslim ban would bar a Syrian national who had lived in Switzerland for decades but not a Swiss national who had immigrated to Syria during the civil war, the challengers argued.

Mr Wall opened with his central point: "Both the constitution and acts of Congress give the president of the United States broad authority to prevent aliens overseas from entering this country when he deems it in the nation's interest".

Arguments are underway in Seattle over whether to reinstate President Donald Trump's travel ban.

"Yes, Judge Hawkins, he has said several things approaching that", replied Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall. The Justice Department counters that Trump was exercising his legal authority by issuing the order and say the lower courts have wrongly second-guessed him on matters of national security.

The hearing was held in Seattle' s William K. Nakamura Courthouse, named for a U.S. Medal of Honor victor born in Seattle to Japanese immigrant parents who were interned. The panel is hearing arguments over Haw.

The revised executive order applies to visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Instead of appealing to the US Supreme Court, the president issued a revised version of the ban to make it more defendable in courts.

Yet Trump's continued inclusion of a 90-day ban on all foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries and the 120-day ban on all refugees in the revised travel ban led to fresh legal challenges from the state of Hawaii and an American imam that a new panel of 9th Circuit judges must now resolve.

Katyal replied that some of Trump's comments came even after his election and that a written campaign statement calling for a Muslim ban had remained on the Trump site until the administration removed it on the eve of another federal circuit court hearing earlier this month.

Judges Will Again Decide Fate Of Travel Ban