Hawaii urges court to keep hold on Trump travel ban

Hawaii urges court to keep hold on Trump travel ban

Hawaii urges court to keep hold on Trump travel ban

The first executive order was issued in late January, with no advance notice, causing chaos for some travelers and prompting swift legal challenges.

Judges Michael Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez - all appointed by President Bill Clinton - said the travel ban violated immigration law by discriminating against people based on their nationality when it comes to issuing visas and by failing to demonstrate that their entry would hurt American interests.

Ruling on a case brought by the state of Hawaii, the appeal judges found that the executive order violated existing immigration legislation.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called the national security concerns an after-the-fact justification for a policy that was "rooted in religious animus and meant to bar Muslims from this country".

Chin says he expects Hawaii's lawsuit challenging the travel ban to go to the U.S. Supreme Court along with a similar ruling by another appeals court.

Critically, the judges again pointed to Trump's social media presence to substantiate their ruling, including a seres of Twitter posts from June 5 in which the president claimed "we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain unsafe countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people!"

The president has "broad power", the 4th Circuit ruled, "but that power is not absolute".

Putin critic Navalny detained by police, his wife says
Monday in Russia is a public holiday, Russia Day, and citizens usually go out for festivities in the city centers to mark the day. Navalny's wife, Yulia, tweeted that her husband had been detained a half an hour before the start of the scheduled rally.

Last month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, upheld an injunction on President Trump's travel ban, saying the executive order, "speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination". The refugee program is not at issue in the 4th Circuit case.

Any exception to the INA would need to be justified based on national interest, the judges write - and they were not convinced by Trump's argument that the order ensures national security. It's now almost universally recognized as being unconstitutional and profoundly unjust, born of 'race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership, ' as a congressional apology put it. The 9th Circuit said he was required to consult with Congress in setting the number of refugees allowed into the country in a given year and that he could not decrease it midyear.

Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said Monday's ruling was yet another signal that Trump's executive order was on weak legal footing.

He too faced some hard questioning, including queries on whether the lower-court decision was too broad. One portion of the "travel ban" executive order - which does not limit travel or immigration and calls for the government to carry out an internal review of the refugee admission process - should be allowed to go into effect.

The administration said it would seek further review at the U.S. Supreme Court, as it has already done with a ruling against the travel ban by another appeals court last month.

The recent attacks confirm that the threat to the nation is immediate and real, he said. "Certain countries shelter or sponsor terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, and we may be unable to obtain any reliable background information on individuals from these war-torn, failed states", Sessions said in a statement.

Related news