{"id":21398,"date":"2017-02-06T06:02:27","date_gmt":"2017-02-06T06:02:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/?p=21398"},"modified":"2017-02-06T06:02:27","modified_gmt":"2017-02-06T06:02:27","slug":"9th-circuit-court-declines-quickly-reinstate-travel-ban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/news\/9th-circuit-court-declines-quickly-reinstate-travel-ban.html","title":{"rendered":"9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban:- A federal appeals court on Sunday ruled that President Trump\u2019s controversial immigration order will remain suspended for the time being, allowing those previously banned from coming to the United States at least another day to get here.<\/span><\/p>\n

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit preserves a lower judge\u2019s order to temporarily halt the ban \u2014 and based on a schedule the court outlined, the stop will remain in place at least until sometime on Monday. The Justice Department said it would not elevate the dispute to the Supreme Court before that.<\/span><\/p>\n

Trump responded to the development Sunday by writing on Twitter that he had \u201cinstructed Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY.\u201d A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman did not immediately return messages seeking comment on how, practically, that screening would be implemented.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cJust cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril,\u201d Trump wrote. \u201cIf something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The next few days will be telling for the future of the president\u2019s executive order. The appeals court asked those challenging the ban to file written arguments by 4 a.m. Eastern on Monday and asked Justice Department lawyers to reply by 6 p.m. Eastern. They could then schedule a hearing or rule whether the ban should remain on hold.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the meantime, people who had been stranded in legal limbo rushed to fly back to the United States. Some successfully reunited with family members, while others \u2014 particularly those whose visas were physically taken or marked as invalid \u2014 ran into roadblocks trying to board planes overseas. At Dulles International Airport in Northern Virginia on Sunday, immigration lawyers could be heard on phones, arguing with airline representatives to let their passengers board as some seemed confused over the various court rulings and what they meant.<\/span><\/p>\n

What lies ahead is likely to be a weeks-long battle that will be waged in courtrooms across the country over whether Trump\u2019s ban can pass legal muster. Federal courts in New York, California and elsewhere have blocked aspects of the ban from being implemented, although one federal judge in Massachusetts declared that he did not think that challengers had demonstrated that they had a high likelihood of success. The lawsuits now stretch from D.C. to Hawaii, and the number seems to grow regularly.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Trump administration has been steadfast in its support of the executive order, which it says is necessary for national security, and the president himself tweeted repeatedly his disdain for the judge in Washington state who put a stop to it.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!\u201d Trump wrote Saturday.<\/span><\/p>\n

Vice President Pence said Sunday on NBC\u2019s \u201cMeet The Press\u201d that White House officials felt that Trump was \u201coperating within his authority as president, both under the constitution and under clear statutory law.\u201d Legal analysts have said that the president has broad authority to set immigration policy, although civil liberties advocates have countered that the order essentially amounts to a discriminatory ban on Muslims that has no real national security purpose.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re very confident that we\u2019re going to prevail,\u201d Pence said. \u201cWe\u2019ll accomplish the stay and will win the case on the merits. But again, the focus here is on the safety and security of the American people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

On Sunday morning television talk shows, some Republicans in Congress took issue with comments by the president, particularly his description of U.S. District Judge James L. Robart as a \u201cso-called judge.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ll be honest, I don\u2019t understand language like that,\u201d Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said. \u201cWe don\u2019t have so-called judges, we don\u2019t have so-called senators, we don\u2019t have so-called presidents. We have people from three different branches of government who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. .\u2009.\u2009. So, we don\u2019t have any so-called judges, we have real judges.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re very confident that we\u2019re going to prevail,\u201d Pence said. \u201cWe\u2019ll accomplish the stay and will win the case on the merits. But again, the focus here is on the safety and security of the American people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

On Sunday morning television talk shows, some Republicans in Congress took issue with comments by the president, particularly his description of U.S. District Judge James L. Robart as a \u201cso-called judge.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ll be honest, I don\u2019t understand language like that,\u201d Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said. \u201cWe don\u2019t have so-called judges, we don\u2019t have so-called senators, we don\u2019t have so-called presidents. We have people from three different branches of government who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. .\u2009.\u2009. So, we don\u2019t have any so-called judges, we have real judges.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said: \u201cWe all get disappointed from time to time at the outcome in courts on things that we care about. But I think it is best to avoid criticizing judges individually.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

McConnell went on to offer a broader critique of Trump\u2019s executive order than he had previously: \u201cWe all want to try to keep terrorists out of the United States. But we can\u2019t shut down travel. We certainly don\u2019t want Muslim allies who have fought with us in countries overseas to not be able to travel to the United States. We need to be careful about this.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Several federal judges have ruled against the administration on its implementation of the ban, though the case now before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit is perhaps the most significant one. It stems from a lawsuit brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota, which alleged that the immigration order was \u201cseparating families, harming thousands of the States\u2019 residents, damaging the States\u2019 economies, hurting State-based companies, and undermining both States\u2019 sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming place for immigrants and refugees.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Responding to those arguments, Robart temporarily halted the ban on Friday. Then, 9th Circuit Judges William C. Canby Jr., who was appointed by Jimmy Carter, and Michelle Taryn Friedland, who was appointed by Barack Obama, denied the Justice Department\u2019s request on Sunday to immediately restore it.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Justice Department could have gone straight to the Supreme Court, but a Justice Department spokesman said it would not do so.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWith the fast briefing schedule the appeals court laid out, we do not plan to ask the Supreme Court for an immediate stay but instead let the appeals process play out,\u201d spokesman Peter Carr said.<\/span><\/p>\n

Although the side that loses can request intervention from the nation\u2019s highest judicial body, it would take the votes of five justices to overturn the panel decision. The court has been shorthanded since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia nearly a year ago, and it is ideologically divided between four more liberal justices and four conservative-leaning ones.<\/span><\/p>\n

Leon Fresco, the deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Immigration Litigation in Obama\u2019s Justice Department, said he was \u201csurprised that there is this exuberance to immediately rescind the executive order,\u201d particularly given the timing issues.<\/span><\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s order, which barred all refugees as well as citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the United States, was temporary. Refugees were banned for 120 days. The others were barred for 90 days, except those from Syria, whose travel to the United States was blocked indefinitely. The order was purportedly designed to give the administration time to formulate a plan on how to vet people coming from countries that have terrorist activity.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIt is perplexing why the government wouldn\u2019t want to simply, at this point, maintain an orderly process in one court as opposed to fighting it out all across the country in different courts, and working its way to the Supreme Court,\u201d Fresco said. \u201cUnless the goal is to have an outright travel ban forever, and we should take the president at his word that that\u2019s not the goal, then let\u2019s just have calmer heads prevail and conduct the security analysis that was going to be conducted during these 90 days.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Indeed, if Trump\u2019s ban were to be immediately reinstated, that might spark chaos similar to that which occurred when it was first rolled out on Jan. 27. To implement the order then, the State Department provisionally revoked tens of thousands of visas. When people first began landing at U.S. airports, Customs and Border Protection officers detained more than 100 people and deported some, sparking protests and lawsuits across the country.<\/span><\/p>\n

It was unclear Sunday whether U.S. officials had a plan in place to avoid a repeat of that scenario, though much would depend on what specifically was ordered by a court, and when. Spokesmen for the State Department and Customs and Border Protection declined to comment on the question.<\/span><\/p>\n

In an interview with Bill O\u2019Reilly of Fox News that aired Sunday afternoon, Trump insisted that the initial implementation of his order was \u201cvery smooth\u201d and said \u2014 misleadingly \u2014 that \u201cyou had 109 people out of hundreds of thousands of travelers, and all we did was vet those people very, very carefully.\u201d That does not take into account the tens of thousands of people who could not travel because their visa was revoked, nor does it acknowledge those who were taken out of the country after their plane landed.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Department of Homeland Security said Saturday that because of Robart\u2019s ruling, it was suspending enforcement of the executive order entirely, and the State Department restored the visas that had been provisionally revoked. Advocates encouraged travelers from the affected countries who qualified for entry to get on planes as soon as possible because of the unpredictable legal terrain.<\/span><\/p>\n

Early Sunday, the Justice Department asked the appeals court to intervene, asserting that it was improper for a lower court to engage in \u201csecond-guessing\u201d of the president\u2019s judgment on a national security matter.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe injunction contravenes the constitutional separation of powers; harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the nation\u2019s elected representative responsible for immigration matters and foreign affairs; and \u00adsecond-guesses the President\u2019s national security judgment about the quantum of risk posed by the admission of certain classes of aliens and the best means of minimizing that risk,\u201d acting solicitor general Noel Francisco wrote in a brief.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is somewhat unusual for a district judge to issue an order that affects the entire country, but Robart, who was nominated by President George W. Bush and has been on the bench since 2004, said it was necessary to follow Congress\u2019s intention that \u201cthe immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

He was quoting from a 2015 appeals court ruling that had blocked Obama\u2019s executive action that would have made it easier for undocumented immigrants in this country to remain. It was never implemented because of legal challenges.<\/span><\/p>\n

Source:-\u00a0https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/politics\/trump-administration-appeals-to-restore-travel-ban-says-earlier-ruling-was-second-guessing-the-president\/2017\/02\/05\/6fcdbb5a-eb4c-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.044760b3578f<\/span><\/div>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t