Originally posted by the Voice of America.
Voice of America content is produced by the Voice of America,
a United States federal government-sponsored entity, and is in
the public domain.


9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Decision on Trump Travel Ban Coming Thursday

by Associated Press

   SAN FRANCISCO --

   The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has upheld a lower
   court's order temporarily suspending President Donald Trump's ban on
   immigration from seven Muslim majority countries.

   A three-judge appellate panel that heard oral arguments in the case
   earlier this week issued its ruling late Thursday. The U.S. Supreme
   Court is likely to determine the case's final outcome.

   Last week, U.S. District Court Judge James Robart slapped a temporary
   hold on Trump's executive order. The president responded angrily on
   Twitter, calling Robart a "so-called judge" who made a "ridiculous"
   decision that will allow "many very bad and dangerous people into our
   country."

   At the appeals court hearing on Tuesday, the three-judge panel heard
   arguments from a lawyer for the Justice Department and an attorney
   representing the states of Washington and Minnesota, which sued to
   overturn the ban.

   U.S. attorney August Flentje argued that Trump's executive order was
   well within his power granted by Congress and the Constitution. But
   Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell said the travel ban
   reinstating the travel ban without a full judicial review would throw
   the country "back into chaos."

   He also said the ban had separated families, stranded students
   overseas, and left people in doubt about whether they should travel
   because of the uncertainty of whether they could come back.

   On Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit,
   arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict
   entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his
   determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

   The states said Trump's travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and
   universities. Citing Trump's campaign promise to stop Muslims from
   entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry
   to people based on religion.

   Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday
   conducted by phone -- an unusual step -- and broadcast live on cable
   networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge
   audience.

   The judges hammered away at the administration's claim that the ban was
   motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states'
   argument that it targeted Muslims.

   "I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious
   animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be
   affected," Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an
   attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

   Only 15 percent of the world's Muslims are affected by the executive
   order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.

   "Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries
   to terrorism?" Judge Michelle Friedland, who was appointed by President
   Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

   The lower-court judge temporarily halted the ban after determining that
   the states were likely to win the case and had shown that the ban would
   restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities
   and reduce their tax base. Robart put the executive order on hold while
   the lawsuit works its way through the courts.

   After that ruling, the State Department quickly said people from the
   seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen
   -- with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to
   tearful reunions at airports round the country.

   The Supreme Court has a vacancy, and there's no chance Trump's nominee,
   Neil Gorsuch, will be confirmed in time to take part in any
   consideration of the ban.

   The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course
   before the court would take up the issue. The administration also could
   change the order, including changing its scope or duration.