Published: Fri, June 16, 2017
Local | By Adrian Hale

Trump delays effective date of travel ban amid court battle

Trump delays effective date of travel ban amid court battle

The ruling by a three-judge bench of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was against the revised travel ban. They also found that the president's order violated USA immigration law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality.

Trump's tweets have increasingly been cited in court's decision process.

CCP waded into one recent case, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus decided by the Supreme Court in 2014, which ruled in favor of challengers to an OH law prohibiting false statements during a political campaign.

That 90-day period was about to expire, with some challengers of the ban using the lapsing timetable to reason that the executive order was now moot.

The Ninth Circuit, however, had upset Rule 23 (f)'s balance.

U.S. Chief Circuit Judge Roger Gregory wrote that the text of Trump's executive order, which was challenged in courts across the country for targeting members of a particular faith, "speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination".

The Supreme Court is now weighing a request by the Trump administration to stay a decision striking down the travel ban, which was handed down last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

An executive order can not be divorced from its intent, and if the motivation behind it wasn't sufficiently clear before, Trump's recent tweetstorm of complaints about the "politically correct" version of the travel ban the Justice Department crafted (at his behest) after the initial version was struck down confirms that his intent hasn't changed.

The new Supreme Court brief, filed June 9 and signed by attorney Barnaby Zall, Allen Dickerson and Zac Morgan of CCP, said using Trump's campaign statements to fight the travel ban would damage the ability of future candidates to convey their messages to voters.

What happens next? Under normal circumstances, their session would close at the end of June and there would not be hearings until the fall of 2017. The start date on the original order was March 16. Watson's ruling halted imposition of the order and also stopped this review of the vetting process. It is possible that this review might now resume and be completed soon.

Masri noted that CAIR filed an amicus ("friend of the court") brief in the case. The 90-day period would be over, and the order would no longer be in effect.

"And yet again, these revisions underline that the one thing the president has consistently wanted throughout is a Muslim ban", he added. The court at some point questioned the authenticity of the travel ban. Only time will tell.

Like this: