Federal appeals court maintains suspension of Trump’s immigration order

SMACK!

DOWN!

Whattak bhim!!!

Watch the Prince threaten to drink poison again.

I do not wish death on any one. However if someone willingly wants to drink poison then I can pay for it.

Which one Prince want?

Hold your horses.  This is going to the Supreme Court.

Trump gets another bump down a few more rungs on the ladder.

Unfortunately this is just the beginning of the steep slope Trump is on until, most likely, he will be "turfed out" of office.

A demonstrator holds up a sign outside of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Tuesday. A panel of appeals court judges upheld the suspension of U.S. President Donald Trump's travel ban on Thursday. (Jeff Chiu/Associated Press)

A federal appeals court in San Francisco has unanimously ruled to uphold the suspension of U.S. President Donald Trump's travel ban.

The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday said Washington state proved it had the legal right to bring the lawsuit over the ban by alleging its universities would suffer harm — one of the questions that the judges considered.

Universities have complained about students and faculty being stranded overseas.

• Trump says court deciding on travel ban is 'so political'
• U.S. appeals court weighs appeal of Trump's travel ban

The court rejected the Trump administration's claim that it did not have the authority to review the president's executive order. "There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy," the court said.

The appeals panel said the government presented no evidence to explain the urgent need for the executive order to take effect immediately. The judges noted compelling public interests on both sides.

William Canby is one of three judges on the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that unanimously ruled to uphold the suspension of Trump's travel ban. (Ross D. Franklin/Associated Press)

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination."

The judges also noted that the states had raised serious allegations about religious discrimination.

Case could go to Supreme Court

Trump tweeted shortly after the decision, saying," SEE YOU IN COURT."

One law professor says the "million-dollar question" is whether the Trump administration would appeal decision and take the matter to the Supreme Court.

That could run the risk of having only eight justices to hear the case, which could produce a tie and leave the lower-court ruling in place.

The U.S. Supreme Court currently 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.

Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said, "There's a distinct risk in moving this too quickly. But we're not in a normal time and Donald Trump is very rash. He may trump, pardon the figure of speech, the normal rule."

States argued ban targeted Muslims 

U.S. District Judge James Robart, in Seattle, issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation's refugee program and immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries that have raised terrorism concerns.

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 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. (Jeff Chiu/Associated Press)

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 that was broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge audience.

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

Judge Richard Clifton, of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals, said only 15 per cent of the world's Muslims are affected by the executive order, citing his own calculations. (Las Vegas Review-Journal via AP)

"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 per cent 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 T. Friedland, who was appointed by former president Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

Judge Michelle T. Friedland, right, questioned whether the government has 'pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism.' (Eric Risberg/Associated Press)

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.

Just to be clear.  This is not a Muslim issue.  This is an immigration issue.  Some of you need to take the emotion out of decision-making.

Whether Muslim-against or not, Donald Trump's travel ban is null and void.

When the matter reaches the Supreme Courts, it will be seen that their decision will reflect the two current court decisions.

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Just to be clear.  This is not a Muslim issue.  This is an immigration issue.  Some of you need to take the emotion out of decision-making.

Bibi gyal, you ever wondered why fly fasten in cow kaka hole? Donald Trump is the perfect one to use as an example. He preached during his campaign to "a total ban on Muslims entering the country". Rudy G. gave him sound advice. Wonder if Rudy G. is laughing all the way to the bank.