President Trump’s Travel Ban, Immigration Policy Dealt a Blow By Appeals Court

President Donald Trump’s Executive Order Travel Ban wasn’t reinstated yesterday by a U.S. Appeals Court, dealing a blow to the President’s aggressive immigration agenda.

Trump’s controversial travel ban was hastily imposed at the last minute on Friday January 27th and aimed to temporarily closing the door to refugees and travelers from 7 mostly countries in North Africa and the Middle East.

The legal challenge to the executive order was filed by 2 state attorney generals in the lawsuit,  State of Washington, State of Minnesota Vs Donald Trump.

The 3 judges hearing the appeals case determined yesterday that Trump’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal filed by the Justice Department is DENIED.

President Trump fired back in large caps on Twitter, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

President Trump claimed in the past that he could take the legal challenge all the way up the Supreme Court.

Trump’s legal team from the Justice Department argued in court that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, especially related to national security concerns, are unreviewable, even when those actions potentially contradict constitutional rights and protections.

However, the 3 judges in the Appeals Court concluded in their decision, “there is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”

The judges defended the power of the legal system to uphold and comply with the Constitution, even when immigration and national security issues threaten it.

“Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution,” the Appeals Court said in their ruling.

Later, the judges wrote that after reviewing the legal arguments, the competing public interests do not justify a stay that would reinstate the travel ban.

“On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies.  And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.  We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this; when considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justify a stay” the Appeals Court said.

Washington State’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson tweeted yesterday, “People on both sides have strong feelings on this issue, but we should all agree on the Constitution. – BF”

Written By:

Johnathan Schweitzer


About Johnathan Schweitzer 1646 Articles
Welcome to Schweitz Finance. I hope that my financial website will provide you with relevant market information to help you manage your investments with greater clarity and insight.
Contact: Website