4th Circuit Uses Trump's Comments in Blocking Travel Ban
Thursday's opinion keeps in place a Maryland district court's nationwide injunction against the order, issued March 6.
May 25, 2017 at 04:05 PM
7 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is the first appellate court to uphold an injunction against President Donald Trump's revised travel ban executive order, a move that likely sets the issue up for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thursday's opinion keeps in place a Maryland district court's nationwide injunction against the order, issued March 6. The executive order blocked the entry of immigrants from six majority-Muslim countries.
“Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute,” Judge Roger Gregory wrote. “It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation.”
The Fourth Circuit heard the case en banc earlier this month, meaning the government's only recourse is to appeal to the Supreme Court. Trump has indicated he would appeal, though a similar challenge is pending in the Ninth Circuit. That court heard arguments a week after the Fourth Circuit, and a ruling is pending.
Today's 10-3 ruling was fractured. Judges Diana Motz, Robert King, James Wynn, Albert Diaz, Henry Floyd and Pamela Harris joined in Gregory's opinion. Judges William Traxler, Barbara Keenan, Stephanie Thacker and Wynn wrote concurring opinions. Three of the more conservative judges, Paul Niemeyer, Dennis Shedd and G. Steven Agee, each wrote dissenting opinions but joined in each others' dissents.
Central to the case was whether the court should consider Trump's public comments calling for a complete ban on Muslims entering the country as evidence that his order discriminated based on religion. The government argued the order itself was neutral on its face, and that the court should not consider what Trump said as a presidential candidate.
“The government has repeatedly asked this court to ignore evidence, circumscribe our own review, and blindly defer to executive action, all in the name of the Constitution's separation of powers,” the opinion said. “We decline to do so, not only because it is the particular province of the judicial branch to say what the law is, but also because we would do a disservice to our constitutional structure were we to let its mere invocation silence the call for meaningful judicial review. The deference we give the coordinate branches is surely powerful, but even it must yield in certain circumstances, lest we abdicate our own duties to uphold the Constitution.”
In his dissent, Niemeyer, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote that the lower court “seriously erred” in considering Trump's campaign statements, and in refusing to apply the correct Supreme Court precedent.
“The district court's approach is not only unprecedented, it is totally unworkable and inappropriate under any standard of analysis,” Niemeyer wrote.
The majority opinion did not reach the statutory questions presented under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and instead focused on the establishment clause claims since those were the basis of the lower court's injunction.
The case was brought by several refugee assistant groups, who were represented by a team of lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center.
Cogan Schneier covers litigation in Washington, D.C., for the National Law Journal and Law.com. Contact her at [email protected]. On Twitter: @CoganSchneier.Copyright The National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
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 All'Clear Abuse of Discretion': 9th Circuit Says Judge Should Have Recused From Death Row Inmate's Lawsuit
Trump Counsel Again Asks Second Circuit to Remove NY State Case to Federal Court
When in Doubt: What's a Dubitante Opinion, and Why Do Judges Write Them?
Justices Appear Split Over Trucker's RICO Lawsuit Against Cannabis Companies
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