A federal court in California recently ruled that its travel ban is able to partially go into effect, allowing authorities to block entry to individuals from six countries if those individuals have no ties to the U.S. This is a major victory for President Trump and his administration.
Obtained by Conservative Tribune:
According to Reuters, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Monday that a lower court’s temporary injunction on the revised travel ban issued by the Trump administration on Sept. 24, could be temporarily blocked.
That would allow the Trump administration to bar entry to the United States to would-be travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — all countries with security and/or terrorism issues — who don’t have formal connections to the United States.
“Those connections are defined as family relationships and ‘formal, documented’ relationships with U.S.-based entities such as universities and resettlement agencies,” Reuters noted.
“Those with family relationships that would allow entry include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States.”
The plan had been blocked after a judge found that a lawsuit from the state of Hawaii challenging six of the eight countries on the revised list — North Korea and Venezuela, the only two countries on the list that weren’t majority Muslim, weren’t challenged — was likely to succeed.
“We are reviewing the court’s order and the government will begin enforcing the travel proclamation consistent with the partial stay,” Justice Department spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said, according to Reuters.
“We believe that the proclamation should be allowed to take effect in its entirety,” she added, referring to the implementation of the ban regardless of whether the individual has ties to the United States.
The 9th Circuit Court’s decision was similar to a Maryland ruling that blocked the travel ban for those with ties to the United States, according to The New York Times.
While the meat of his state’s case was struck down in the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling, Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin acknowledged that the ruling went along the lines of a Supreme Court judgment in July on another iteration of President Trump’s travel ban that has now expired and said he was happy that those with ties to America would still be able to enter.
“I‘m pleased that family ties to the U.S., including grandparents, will be respected,” Chin said.
This is the third iteration of the travel ban. The second version had been scheduled to go before the full Supreme Court for review before it was replaced. Legal experts told The Times that the third almost certainly will finally see full judicial review.
Except for the first, hastily-crafted ban, the Trump administration has mostly won challenges on its immigration control policies.
The ultimate reckoning, however, is likely to come before the U.S. Supreme Court. And that, as the president likes to say, will be yuge.
Critics of the travel ban in its various iterations call it a “Muslim ban” that violates the U.S. Constitution by discriminating on the basis of religion.
The 9th Circuit is due to hear oral arguments in the case on Dec. 6. In a parallel case from Maryland, a judge also ruled against the Trump administration and partially blocked the ban from going into effect.
An appeal in the Maryland case is being heard on Dec. 8 by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. The Maryland case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents several advocacy groups, including the International Refugee Assistance Project.
What do you think about this? Scroll down to comment.