Trump delays effective date of travel ban amid court battle

Trump delays effective date of travel ban amid court battle

Trump delays effective date of travel ban amid court battle

Though the ban never took effect, thanks to nationwide injunctions issued in Hawaii and Maryland, opponents have argued that the cases over the ban will become moot when the term expires.

ABC News contributor Kate Shaw said Wednesday's memorandum "clarifies and amends the executive order, effectively neutralizing one of the plaintiffs' key arguments against both a stay and cert - that the order expired" on Wednesday.

"President Trump knows that the country he has been elected to lead is threatened daily by terrorists who believe in a radical ideology, and that there are active plots to infiltrate the United States immigration system - just as occurred prior to 9/11", Sessions said in a statement on Monday.

Since the DOJ initially petitioned for Supreme Court review on June 1, Trump has tweeted about the order, the courts, and his disdain for political correctness, confirming the claims of travel-ban challengers that the executive order is religiously motivated and violates constitutional guarantees to freedom of religion. Because he issued the ban back in March, those 90 days are up this week.

"Frankly, I think any lawyer worth their salt 100 percent agrees that the president is fully within his rights and his responsibilities to do what is necessary to protect the country", Spicer told reporters at the White House.

The Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case on Wednesday.

Two Britons treated for burns after Portuguese forest fires
Costa tweeted his "deepest regret for the victims. and a word of encouragement and strength for all who help combat this scourge". Isabel Brandao told The Associated Press on Sunday that she had feared for her life when she saw the Pedrogao Grande blaze.

"President Trump's Executive Order is well within his lawful authority to keep the Nation safe". Presidents do have substantial latitude in setting immigration policy and in preserving national security, but those powers are not limitless and can not be exercised arbitrarily.

The latest ruling against the Trump administration's ban on travel from six Muslim nations is a particularly sharp blow to the president not because it is more sweeping than previous legal decisions - the 9th Circuit's decision is actually somewhat narrower than the district court opinion in the case - but because it reaches the same result for different reasons. "It can not go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation".

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court for additional time to file legal papers in response to a second federal appeals court that refused to lift a hold on President Donald Trump's travel ban.

"Today's ruling once again demonstrates the near-unanimity of judges in ruling against any type of 'Muslim ban, '" said CAIR National Litigation Director Lena Masri.

The ruling by a three-judge bench of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was against the revised travel ban.

Related news