By In a preliminary ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a bid to reinstate President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration ban, meaning that formerly barred refugees and citizens from seven Muslim majority countries can continue to enter the United States as long as they have proper legal documents.
The three-judge panel unanimously upheld the ruling by Federal District Judge James Robart, who issued a nationwide restraining order on Saturday that temporarily blocked Trump’s immigration ban after it was challenged by Washington state and Minnesota as unconstitutional and violative of federal law.
Immediately following the verdict, President Trump responded in an angry tweet, writing, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”
A day later, Trump took to Twitter again to call the decision “disgraceful.”
In its 29-page decision, the panel wrote, “We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.”
The Trump administration was unable to substantiate its claim that the immigration order is a national security matter, since no terrorist attacks were committed by citizens of those seven Muslim majority countries in America’s modern history.
In other words, the statement declares that the Department of Justice, which was representing the Trump administration, did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the necessity of the immigration ban.
The judges proclaimed, “The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.”
This means that the Trump administration was unable to substantiate its claim that the immigration order is a national security matter, since no terrorist attacks were committed by citizens of those seven Muslim majority countries in America’s modern history.
The case, Washington v. Trump, is the most prominent lawsuit challenging the legality of Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration, which was issued a week after Trump’s inauguration and met by numerous protests at airports and cities across the U.S.
“The appeals court’s refusal to reinstate the Muslim ban is correct. We will keep fighting this un-American executive order until it is permanently dismantled.”
The decision also asserted, “Although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action,” reminding the president that federal courts have the ability to restrain his powers.
The Justice Department could ask the Supreme Court to offer an adjudication. However, the Supreme Court is one justice short, meaning that there could be a 4-4 tie on ideological grounds. If there is a deadlock, then the Appeals Court’s decision remains.
Following the verdict by the Federal U.S. Appeals Court, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a statement on Twitter from its Director of Immigrant’s Rights Project, Omar Jadwat, declaring, “The appeals court’s refusal to reinstate the Muslim ban is correct. We will keep fighting this un-American executive order until it is permanently dismantled.”