Trump’s Order halted by US Court of Appeals

Trump's Order Halted By US Court of Appeals

Trump’s Order halted by US Court of Appeals

We applaud the decision by the Nith Court of Appeals, again showing that the US is a just and fair country, with checks and balances placed by the Founding Fathers to prevent despotism.

Friday Februsry 3, 2017, U.S. District Judge James L. Robert for the Western District of Washington in Seattle issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) halting the enforcement of Trump’s Executive Order (EO). The EO banned nationals from seven Muslim- majority countries from entering the U.S. The TRO was effective nationwide and the White House released a statement the next day stating that they intended to seek a Stay of the TRO. The Trump administration filed an emergency stay of the order with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been denied.

Yesterday, February 9, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling keeping the TRO in place for a few reasons. The Court found that the Executive Order violated the Due Process and Establishment clauses of the Constitution. The Trump administration believed that the people affected by the EO were not citizens of the U.S. so in turn that the Due Process clause does not pertain to them. The Court stated that non- citizens indeed have certain rights. The judges were also unable to dismiss the states’ argument that the EO violated the establishment clause, meaning that its purpose was to discriminate by religion. The government argued that Muslims weren’t specifically stated in the EO, however, the court said that such blatancy is not the standard for deciding whether a law meant to discriminate or not. Given Trump’s promises of a Muslim ban during his campaign, further review of this claim was deemed necessary by the Court.

The states also were successful in showing that they would suffer irreparable harm if the EO was enforced in respect to familial relationships, employment, business, and education. While the Trump Administration emphasized the urgency in the matter as it was a question of national security, the Court declared that the President did not elaborate on why it was so urgent and had turned down many invitations to tell the court more about the reasons for the ban. Saying that the world is a dangerous place is not enough. The government is expected to announce their proposed next steps in the litigation shortly.