Trump's Travel Ban Suffers New Loss in Ninth Circuit
A federal appellate court on Monday handed President Donald Trump his second major defeat in a month after finding his executive order suspending immigration from six Muslim nations and the U.S. refugee program violated federal law.
June 12, 2017 at 04:02 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A federal appellate court on Monday handed President Donald Trump his second major defeat in a month after finding his executive order suspending immigration from six Muslim nations and the U.S. refugee program violated federal law.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an unsigned opinion in Hawaii v. Trump, held that the executive order exceeded Trump's authority under federal immigration law. That decision comes less than a month after the Fourth Circuit, on different grounds, upheld an injunction stopping the order from taking effect in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump.
“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,” the panel wrote.
The full Fourth Circuit, in a 10-3 decision, ruled that the executive order was unconstitutional religious discrimination. But the three Ninth Circuit judges—all Clinton appointees—said Monday that it was not necessary to address the constitutional question if the case could be decided on statutory grounds.
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the government's requests that the Hawaii and Fourth Circuit injunctions be lifted. The government also has asked the high court grant review to the government's appeal of the Fourth Circuit decision.
The Ninth Circuit panel said Trump did not meet “the essential precondition” to exercising the authority that Congress gave him under federal immigration law. The president, the judges said, did not “make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”
The panel said the order “runs afoul of other provisions of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] that prohibit nationality-based discrimination and require the president to follow a specific process when setting the annual cap on the admission of refugees.”
The panel upheld most of an injunction issued by a Hawaii federal district judge, but found the judge abused his discretion in enjoining the president himself and internal agency review procedures.
Ruling were Judges Michael Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez.
Copyright the National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Related Articles:
|- Trump's Tweets Are 'Authority' in Advocates' New Travel Ban Filings
- Just the Hits: Key Excerpts From 4th Circuit Travel Ban Ruling
- Will the Supreme Court Follow Trump's Tweets?
- Removal of Trump's Muslim Comments Raises Travel Ban Questions
- 4th Circuit Uses Trump's Comments in Blocking Travel Ban
A federal appellate court on Monday handed President Donald Trump his second major defeat in a month after finding his executive order suspending immigration from six Muslim nations and the U.S. refugee program violated federal law.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an unsigned opinion in Hawaii v. Trump, held that the executive order exceeded Trump's authority under federal immigration law. That decision comes less than a month after the Fourth Circuit, on different grounds, upheld an injunction stopping the order from taking effect in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump.
“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,” the panel wrote.
The full Fourth Circuit, in a 10-3 decision, ruled that the executive order was unconstitutional religious discrimination. But the three Ninth Circuit judges—all Clinton appointees—said Monday that it was not necessary to address the constitutional question if the case could be decided on statutory grounds.
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the government's requests that the Hawaii and Fourth Circuit injunctions be lifted. The government also has asked the high court grant review to the government's appeal of the Fourth Circuit decision.
The Ninth Circuit panel said Trump did not meet “the essential precondition” to exercising the authority that Congress gave him under federal immigration law. The president, the judges said, did not “make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”
The panel said the order “runs afoul of other provisions of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] that prohibit nationality-based discrimination and require the president to follow a specific process when setting the annual cap on the admission of refugees.”
The panel upheld most of an injunction issued by a Hawaii federal district judge, but found the judge abused his discretion in enjoining the president himself and internal agency review procedures.
Ruling were Judges Michael Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez.
Copyright the National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Related Articles:
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOved & Oved Loses Bid to Unmask Author of Bad Firm Review Online
'Clear Abuse of Discretion': 9th Circuit Says Judge Should Have Recused From Death Row Inmate's Lawsuit
Ex-Davis Polk & Wardwell Associate Kaloma Cardwell Drops Appeal
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250