Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Travel Ban
by Stephen Lendman
On Thursday, a US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel unanimously ruled against Trump’s access to America suspension, solely affecting seven majority-Muslim countries.
The issue is by no means settled. The Justice Department may either ask the full appeals court to rule on this issue or petition the Supreme Court directly for an emergency ruling.
Congress could get involved legislatively, making Trump’s executive order, or a version of it, the law of the land. Legal actions against it could go back to the Supreme Court. This issue could drag on longer-term.
It’s unclear how things will turn out short-term. The Ninth Circuit en banc court could uphold its three-judge panel ruling. The High Court has one vacant seat. If it splits 4 - 4, the lower court ruling stands.
The issue is over US District Court Judge James Robart’s temporary restraining order (TRO), staying Trump’s denial of access to America suspension.
He’ll later rule on whether to block his order permanently. If so, the appeals process could begin again.
Here’s the legal issue from the administration’s perspective. US statute law permits the president to prohibit entry into America of anyone for reasons of public health, safety or national security.
It’s the law of the land Trump used to justify his action, along with the federal government’s right to protect the nation’s borders.
At the same time, Washington’s only constitutional power relating to immigration is over naturalization - to assure a uniform nationwide standard.
Otherwise they’d be different ways for foreign nationals to enter America, an untenable situation. While Trump’s action was justified according to the letter of the law, the appeals court panel said it “runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”
It held that “the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.”
A Justice Department statement said “it’s reviewing the decision and considering its options.”
In earlier articles, I argued that Trump acted solely for political reasons, unrelated to protecting the nation’s borders or national security.
He mostly targeted nations America raped and destroyed, no others, no US allies. In the case of Iran, it’s over longstanding hostility toward the Islamic Republic - even though no evidence suggests it poses a threat to any nation, just the opposite.
While the president has the right to use powers vested in his office, he has NO right to abuse them. In my judgment, that’s the issue in this case.
Citizens and residents of nations he targeted pose no threat to America. Earlier I explained that chances of being struck by lightning are far greater than becoming a terrorist attack victim.
Death by auto accident, preventable diseases, violence at home by one family member against another, alcoholism or excessive use of harmful legal drugs is infinitely greater - what Washington and media propaganda never explain.
Minutes after Thursday’s ruling, Trump angrily tweeted: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE.”
The best way to protect it is by ending US imperial madness, stopping the rape and destruction of one country after another - waging peace and stability, not endless wars of aggression.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.