The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban, making their decision this Monday. This is the second time that Trump’s travel ban has been rejected by a U.S. Court of Appeals.
The 90-day travel ban, proposed by the U.S. President, would prevent people from Iran, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering into the United States.
The panel, composed of three judges, ruled that Trump’s order issued on March 6 fails to conform to existing immigration law. What were the reasons behind the panel’s ruling?
The court ruled that the President lacked sufficient reasons for his claim that people from these nations were “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Moreover, the court ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act disallows discrimination on the basis of Nationality alone.
In the published opinion, the court pointed out that of the named countries, only one citizen had been formally charged with attempted terrorism. In 2014, a Somalian-born naturalized citizen was captured for attempting to use explosives to commit a terrorist attack at a Christmas celebration in Portland, Oregon. Two other examples of Iraqi nationals were mentioned, but Iraq is no longer among the listed countries, as Trump has withdrawn their name from the list given the presently positive state of the relations between the United States and Iraq.
The court opined that the Executive Order fails to provide examples of any terrorist activities committed by people coming from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen.
The court said nothing about whether the ruling was unconstitutional on the basis of religious discrimination, but merely claimed that the Executive Order lacked sufficient grounds for evoking the travel ban.
The court further cited Trumps June 5 tweet as part of their reasoning for the claim. Trump wrote: “That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!” The court, in turn, responded that the Executive Order “does not provide any link between an individual’s nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism or their inherent dangerousness.”
The decision was unanimous.