Ninth Circuit, Once Again, Upholds Block of President’s Revised Travel Ban

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling today that upholds a lower court’s block of the President’s revised travel ban.

The lower federal court, based in Hawaii, originally held that the order exceeded the President’s scope of power and that it was too sweeping. The Trump administration appealed this to the (now infamous) Ninth Circuit, where the lower court’s ruling was upheld, USA Today is reporting.

This is the second blow to the revised (just the revised one) travel ban from a federal appeals court. Last month, we reported that the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled against the travel ban, although on different grounds.

The Fourth Circuit stated that the order “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” Chief Justice Roger Gregory wrote the opinion for the court.

The Ninth Circuit ruled on different grounds, citing the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court, in their unanimous ruling stated that:

“The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president broad powers to control the entry of aliens, and to take actions to protect the American public. But immigration, even for the president, is not a one-person show,” a three-judge panel declared.

The Ninth Circuit stated that this order discriminates on the basis of nationality. Hence, there are two separate appeals courts that have blocked the order, on two different grounds.

Once again, the federal appeals courts are reading all sorts of things into the order that do not exist.

What we have here is an order specifically targets terror prone countries for a temporary amount of time. (I question why Saudi Arabia is not on the list, but that is a separate story). The order was created so that more stringent vetting could be implemented from countries that are known to be terror hot spots.

It is NOT a Muslim ban, and it does not exceed the President’s powers.

The President is relying on a 1952 law that allows him to ban a class of immigrants if they are deemed to be detrimental to U.S. interests. The Ninth Circuit had the audacity to say there was not even a rational basis for the order (I guess they have missed the terrorist attacks from people native to several of these countries?).

The order was modeled off of information obtained by the Obama administration, so what President Trump did was to simply enact something that was already in the works. After all, former President Obama issued a similar travel ban from Iraq, but only now it’s an issue?

Additionally, as Axios points out, the court did look at the President’s Twitter account when considering the case.

Trump’s tweets matter: The decision cites a Trump tweet as evidence that Trump understands it is “‘countries” that are “inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s ‘travel ban.'”

The ruling will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court. But the administration will have to tackle two issues, the rulings on separate grounds from two separate appeals courts. The case may be consolidated into one if appealed, but arguments for both issues will have to be made.



Seth Connell

About Seth Connell

Seth Connell is a graduate of Regent University with a B.A. in the Study of Government and a minor in History. He is an avid defender of the Bill of Rights, personal liberty, Austrian economics, privacy, responsibility, and truth. He lives in the beautiful Commonwealth of Virginia.