Federal appeals court upholds injunction blocking Trump's travel ban

Cheryl Sanders
June 9, 2017

The 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals dealt another blow to President Donald Trumps revised travel ban targeting six-Muslim majority countries on Thursday, May 25, 2017, siding with groups that say the policy illegally targets Muslims.

Under the executive order, travelers from six Muslim-majority countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen - would be temporarily banned from entering the United States. President Trump's new executive order (EO), "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States", which would have gone into effect March 16, 2017, temporarily bans USA entry for nationals from six Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Moreover, Sessions noted that Trump exercised his constitutional duty to protect American people from the threat of terrorism by signing the executive action.

In the latest major setback for the Trump administration's attempt to ban immigration to the USA from several Muslim-majority countries, a federal appeals court rejected the revised version of Trump's now frozen Muslim ban on Thursday, The New York Times reported.


"We can not shut our eyes to such evidence when it stares us in the face", the court said. Judges Paul Niemeyer, Dennis Shedd, and G. Steven Agee, wrote a dissenting opinion. Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote that it was appropriate to consider Trump's comments calling for a Muslim ban.

"President Trump's executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe", Sessions said in a statement. Still, he said, it's hard to make a confident prediction because "Supreme Court justices don't always vote in ideological lockstep".

"I think when they revised this ban, they tried to take that all into accounts, and wisely took out any specific references to religious preferences", Pate said on CNN's "Newsroom", "and I thought that made this ban more likely to be upheld ultimately on appeal because it wasn't as facially as unconstitutional as the first travel ban". He said the president has broad authority to deny entry into the USA, but that authority is not absolute and that his order, quote, "speaks with vague words of national security but in context drips with religious intolerance".

"The Department of Justice strongly disagrees with the decision of the divided court, which blocks the president's efforts to strengthen this country's national security".


The decision also cited former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's claim that Trump "had asked him to find a way to ban Muslims in a legal way". Still, he said, it's hard to make a confident prediction because "Supreme Court justices don't always vote in ideological lockstep". The Fourth Circuit concludes that the plaintiffs in this case would very likely succeed in their argument that the ban violates the Establishment Clause. That order was in effect for seven days before it was blocked by a federal judge in Seattle, a ruling upheld by the 9th Circuit.

A federal appeals court ruling says President Donald Trump's revised travel ban vaguely invoked national security interests but is rooted in religious intolerance.

"Invidious discrimination that is shrouded in layers of legality is no less an insult to our Constitution than naked invidious discrimination", Wynn said.

Another case against the Trump's travel ban 2.0 is pending before the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


FILE - In this September 27, 2016 file photo, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Roger Gregory, gestures during an interview in his office in Richmond, Va.

Other reports by iNewsToday

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER