A federal appeals court on Thursday bluntly rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to revive his controversial travel ban executive order, giving no ground under unusual public pressure from the president himself, Joinfo.com reports with reference to Politico.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday unanimously turned down the Justice Department’s request to lift a Seattle-based judge’s restraining order, blocking authorities from carrying out the limits Trump sought to impose on travel to the US by citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries and by refugees from around the globe.
In an unsparing 29-page ruling, the judges said Trump’s order appears to deprive many affected foreigners of their rights without providing the legal process the Constitution requires.
“The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel. Indeed, the Government does not contend that the Executive Order provides for such process,” the 9th Circuit ruling says.
The judges also appeared to bristle at the starkness of some of the legal arguments Justice Department lawyers offered in the case, including a contention that orders such as Trump’s should not be subject to scrutiny by the courts.
“The Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections,” the court wrote. “There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. … The Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context.”
The White House could take the issue to the Supreme Court, but the prospects for such an appeal are uncertain due in part to the high court being short a justice and split evenly between Democratic- and Republican-appointed justices.