Adamant Trump files appeal against travel ban blockage

Adamant Trump files appeal against travel ban blockage

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson wrote in his ruling that the federal government had not proved the ban was needed to protect the U.S. from terrorists trying to infiltrate the country through legal immigration or the refugee program, USA TODAY reported.

Citing "significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order", including Trump campaign statements purported to be discriminatory of Islam, the court found special First Amendment rights to immigrate to the Muslims throughout the world who neither live here nor have any protections under the Constitution.

President Trump said it would stop terrorists from entering the USA but critics say it is discriminatory.

Mr Trump told supporters a district judge in Hawaii had halted his order, which temporarily suspends the USA refugee programme and bars the entry of people from certain Muslim-majority countries. U.S. District Judge William Conley declared that request moot last month after a federal judge in Washington state blocked the ban. Had the department challenged the ruling in Hawaii, the appeal would have gone to the same San Francisco court that rejected the original version of the travel ban.

Drawing on Supreme Court precedent, Chuang added: "Simply because a decision-maker made the statements during a campaign does not wipe them from "reasonable memory" of a 'reasonable observer'".

Spicer said the administration would first appeal the ruling by the Maryland judge and then seek clarification of Hawaii's ruling before appealing that decision. If the Supreme Court ends up agreeing with the Ninth Circuit that public statements by the president and his aides are fair game in interpreting an order's constitutionality, the clip below will be treated as evidence that an improper goal infects both orders. If the Supreme Court also believes the comments should be considered, Trump should expect the outcome to be the same as from the lower courts. It suspends nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days. It omitted Iraq from the list of barred countries, removed references to religion and excluded green card holders and people who already had visas, among other changes.

"The government appropriately cautions that, in determining objective, courts should not look into the "veiled psyche" and "secret motives" of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a "judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter's heart of hearts, '" Watson wrote".

Each of these statements have been referenced in page after page of federal court decisions evaluating the legality of the revised executive order. "I was elected to change our broken and unsafe system and thinking in government that has weakened and endangered our country and left our people defenseless".

On 15 March, Trump was speaking at a rally in Nashville.

"The second ban is more unsafe than the first ban because it didn't cause as much of an uproar since it made exceptions this time", said Amran Alsiday, an SF State student and Muslim Student Association board member.

The revamped executive order had been due to take effect at midnight (0400 GMT), but a federal judge in Hawaii froze Trump's efforts to close USA borders to nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days.

In a presidential debate last October, Trump was asked if he remained tethered to the concept of a Muslim ban.

In Hawaii, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, defending the government's position, said: "This order doesn't draw any religious distinction at all".

Related News: