Accès direct au contenu

 
Search
Retour rapide vers l'accueil

10 February 2017 - US court refuses to reinstate Trump's immigration ban

The Highlights of the Ruling on Trump’s Immigration Order
Charlie Savage (The New York Times, 09/02/2017)

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday unanimously upheld a Federal District Court judge’s decision to temporarily block the Trump administration from carrying out its executive order on immigration. The executive order would bar entry into the United States of citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries. Here are some highlights from the ruling:

Trump loses, for now

To rule on the government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay. ... [W]e hold that the government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay. [Page 3]

Read on...


______________________________
Judges upheld order
 
Trump travel ban hits major setback after judges uphold temporary restraining order
Ben Jacobs (The Guardian, 09/02/2017)
 
Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban suffered a major setback on Thursday after a panel of three judges upheld an injunction against the president’s order banning arrivals from seven Muslim-majority countries.

In its unanimous ruling, the three judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals upheld the temporary restraining order, which was issued by Judge James Robart, a federal district court judge in Washington state, and has blocked the enforcement of many key parts of the executive order.

The court found that “the government has not shown a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury.” In particular, its ruling noted “the government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the executive order, the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.”

______________________________
Three-judge Panel
 
Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss
Adam Liptak (TheNew York Times, 09/02/2017)
 
A federal appeals panel on Thursday unanimously rejected President Trump’s bid to reinstate his ban on travel into the United States from seven largely Muslim nations, a sweeping rebuke of the administration’s claim that the courts have no role as a check on the president.

The three-judge panel, suggesting that the ban did not advance national security, said the administration had shown “no evidence” that anyone from the seven nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — had committed terrorist acts in the United States.

The ruling also rejected Mr. Trump’s claim that courts are powerless to review a president’s national security assessments. Judges have a crucial role to play in a constitutional democracy, the court said.

Read on...
 
______________________________
9th Circuit
 
The 9th Circuit’s dangerous and unprecedented use of campaign statements to block presidential policy
Eugene Kontorovich (The Washington Post, 09/02/2017)
 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has just upheld a nationwide temporary injunction on President Trump’s executive order relating to refugees and visas from certain countries. I think the court’s opinion is weak in most respects, but I will address one of the most interesting and potentially far-reaching aspects.

Generally, the president has vast discretion in issuing visas. One of the major arguments against the executive order is that while in principle a president can limit immigration from the seven affected countries, it would be unconstitutional for President Trump in particular to do so, because in his case the action is motivated by impermissible religious bias. The central exhibit for this argument is his campaign statements about a “Muslim ban.”

While the 9th Circuit did not address this at great length, focusing instead on due-process arguments, it did accept the basic validity of the form of the states’ argument. “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions,” wrote the court.

Read on...
 
 
Last update February 10, 2017
Créé le February 10, 2017
ISSN 2107-7029
DGESCO Clé des Langues