Ninth Circuit Slaps Down Trump's Travel Ban a Third Time
The court, which heard oral arguments in the case last month, ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in issuing the Sept. 24 travel ban proclamation.
December 22, 2017 at 07:55 PM
3 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against the third iteration of President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order Friday.
The court, which heard oral arguments in the case last month, ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in issuing the Sept. 24 travel ban proclamation. The court said that, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Trump could only ban immigrants based on nationality if he makes a “finding” that the entry of those individuals would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
Trump, the three-judge panel ruled, failed to make such a finding before issuing the proclamation, which indefinitely bans immigrants from eight countries on the basis that those countries have insufficient information-sharing protocols when it comes to vetting immigrants and granting visas.
“The President is not foreclosed from acting to enhance vetting capabilities and other practices in order to strengthen existing immigration law, but must do so in a manner consistent with Congress's intent,” the per curiam opinion said. “Put another way, the President cannot effectively abrogate existing immigration law while purporting to merely strengthen it; the cure cannot be worse than the disease.”
The court, however, limited its ruling so that the injunction against the ban only applies to those with no bona fide relationship to the United States.
The case was brought by the state of Hawaii, a Muslim association and an individual affected by the Sept. 24 order. Hogan Lovells' Neal Katyal, who represented the state, said on Twitter that the ruling was a “thorough repudiation of Trump's position on both substance and procedure.”
Ct issued a thorough repudiation of Trump's position on both substance & procedure. "we doubt whether the Government's position could be adopted without running roughshod over the principles of separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution." https://t.co/R7uIZuJdfE
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) December 23, 2017
In the opinion, the judges wrote that allowing the ban to take effect would be against the public interest.
“In assessing the public interest, we are reminded of Justice Murphy's wise words: “All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land.'” the opinion said, quoting from the dissent in Korematsu v. United States. “It cannot be in the public interest that a portion of this country be made to live in fear.”
The court stayed its decision, pending review by the U.S. Supreme court.
A separate challenge to the travel ban, brought by several immigrant rights groups and individuals, is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. That court heard oral arguments on the case en banc last month, just days after the Ninth Circuit.
Read the opinion below:
height=”480″>
Related stories:
Three Key Quotes From the Ninth Circuit's Travel Ban 3.0 Hearing
With SCOTUS Cloud Overhead, Appeals Courts Take Up Travel Ban 3.0
What Are the Legal Issues in Trump Travel Ban 3.0?
Ninth Circuit Sides With Hawaii, Rules Grandparents Exempt From Trump's Travel Ban
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
© 2025 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'Where Were the Lawyers?' Judge Blocks Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
3 minute readNetflix Music Guru Becomes First GC of Startup Helping Independent Artists Monetize Catalogs
2 minute readK&L Gates Files String of Suits Against Electronics Manufacturer's Competitors, Brightness Misrepresentations
3 minute readHolland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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