Appeals court rules 3 to 0 against Trump on travel ban.
The judges rejected the argument that President Trump’s order should be reinstated for national security reasons and forcefully asserted their ability to serve as a check on his power. Trump reacted angrily on Twitter, posting just minutes after the ruling, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”
The 9th Circuit judges took exception to the administration’s assertion that the president’s order is “unreviewable.” But they are not yet ready to rule on the opposition's argument that the order discriminates against Muslims.
1. The three judges think that they are well within their rights to check the president’s authority on matters of immigration and national security, and the government’s suggestion to the contrary is undemocratic.
2. The court isn’t buying — as Trump has suggested — that the impact of the order was limited to extra vetting for 109 people.
3. The court thinks that the states of Washington and Minnesota have actual harms they can sue over.
“Specifically, the States allege that the teaching and research missions of their universities are harmed by the Executive Order’s effect on their faculty and students who are nationals of the seven affected countries. These students and faculty cannot travel for research, academic collaboration, or for personal reasons, and their families abroad cannot visit. Some have been stranded outside the country, unable to return to the universities at all. The schools cannot consider attractive student candidates and cannot hire faculty from the seven affected countries, which they have done in the past.”
4. The court isn’t sure — at this stage — whether there is proof that the executive order discriminates against Muslims.
5. The court doesn’t think the government needs to immediately reinstate the ban to protect national security.
6. The government says green-card holders aren’t impacted by the order anymore because of guidance from the White House counsel. The court says it can’t take that to the bank.
7. The court wouldn’t even give the government its fallback position — a modification of the earlier judge’s suspension of the ban.