Trump Travel Ban on Immigrants and Refugees
Contributors are not employed, compensated or governed by TDM, opinions and statements are from the contributor directly
A three-judge panel heard arguments from the federal government in support of re-instating the temporary suspension put into place last week on a travel ban put into place by President Donald Trump on January 27 with little warning.
The executive order bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — from entering the US for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halts refugees from Syria.
The ban created airport chaos; as many travelers from the seven countries were already in the air when the ban went into place. Then were turned away upon landing on U.S. soil.
But on Friday, after Washington and Minnesota sued Trump’s order, federal Judge James Robart of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, an appointee of George W. Bush, suspended key parts of the executive order nationwide. And with the suspension, travelers with valid U.S. visas were able to fly this weekend, and many happy family reunions took place at airports across the country.
Trump fired off a series of tweets in response to Robart’s suspension of his ban. In one he referred to Robart as a “so called” judge. In another, he said, “Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”
The two states’ attorneys general put forward several legal arguments in their case, including that it violates the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution because it shows government preference for one religion over another, and Equal Protection Clause — part of the 14th Amendment — because it discriminates based on religion and national origin, according to a CNN story.
The government will argue, however, in an hour-long hearing conducted by telephone with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in San Francisco, that Robart’s injunction should be lifted for now and the executive order should be cleared to go back into effect while the legal process continues.
“The Executive Order is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees,” the lawyers wrote in briefs filed Monday night. They argued that the district court “erred” in entering a “sweeping nationwide injunction.”
It is possible this battle, whatever the court decides, to go all the way to the Supreme Court as either side as the right to ask the highest court to intervene. If there is a 3-3 vote on the Supreme Court the suspension will stay.
Even Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said Tuesday that he should have delayed the implementation of President Trump’s temporary travel ban on immigrants and refugees for at least a day or two to tell congressional leaders what was about to happen, USA Today reported.
