Trump Confident Travel Restrictions Will be Upheld in Court

Trump Confident Travel Restrictions Will be Upheld in Court

Trump Confident Travel Restrictions Will be Upheld in Court

The ban resulted from an executive order, in which the president temporarily halted USA entry of citizens from seven mostly Muslim countries and suspended Syrian refugee immigration indefinitely.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is hearing the government's plea for release from a stay order issued by a court in Seattle, which stopped the administration from implementing its travel ban.

Trump controversially weighed in on that decision multiple times on Twitter, calling Judge James Robart a "so-called judge" and accusing him of opening up the U.S.

JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Well, this challenge was brought initially by Washington state, later joined by Minnesota. The appeals court heard arguments Tuesday on the executive order.

The contentious hearing before three judges on the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals focused narrowly on whether a restraining order issued by a lower court should remain in effect while a challenge to the ban proceeds.

"Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and risky people may be pouring into our country". At the same time, the judges directed pointed questions to an attorney representing two U.S. states that is challenging Mr Trump's executive order on grounds that it unconstitutionally targeted Muslims. Conversely, the Department of Justice lawyer, August E. Flentje, seemed to fumble when asked if the court had jurisdiction to review the case.

Trump, who took office on January 20, has defended the measure, the most divisive act of his young presidency, as necessary for national security.

Huffington Post
Huffington Post

Flentje responded in the affirmative when Judge Michelle Friedland asked whether he was arguing the president's decision was "unreviewable". "I understand the argument they shouldn't be given much weight".

Flentje said he wasn't denying the statements were made.

Noah Purcell, solicitor general for the state of Washington, began his argument by urging the court to serve "as a check on executive abuses".

Judge Richard Clifton, appointed by former President George W. Bush, wanted to know how the order could be considered discriminatory if it potentially affected only 15 percent of the world's Muslims, according to his calculations.

"We're supposed to take your word for it?" Clifton asked. "Congress and the executives had determined that those countries should not get a waiver from a Visa requirement. That's not the standard". Recognizing that religious minorities are more likely to face persecution than members of a country's dominant religion is a well established principle of immigration policy, the Justice Department argues. "The experience and energy of people who come to our country to seek a better life for themselves and their children_to pursue the 'American Dream'_are woven throughout the social, political, and economic fabric of the nation".

Robart's order also imposes harm on US citizens "by thwarting the legal effect of the public's chosen representative", it says.

Yes, replied Flentje, at least when it comes to a determination of risk from those countries. They see that as a violation of the constitutional restriction on the government favoring one religion over another.

Related news