Trump’s Travel Ban Fails in 9th Circuit Court

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 Two other examples of Iraqi nationals were mentioned, but Iraq is no longer among the listed countries, as Trump has withdrawn their name from the list given the presently positive state of the relations between the United States and Iraq.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.


Austin and San Antonio Challenge the New Texas Immigration Laws

Officials of San Antonio and Austin cities recently filed lawsuits to stop the enactment of the anti-sanctuary-cities-law that was passed by Texas State and is set to take action as from September 1. The employees of the two cities revealed their intentions toward the end of May and San Antonio went the to federal District Court to file their case on the same day. The law is called the Texas Senate Bill 4, and the two cities claim that it violates the processes by introducing vague regulatory rules. It also threatens to impose harsh penalties for individual who do not comply.


According to the Austin and San Antonio officials, SB 4 does not respect the First Amendment since it imposes penalties on people who support any policy that goes against its mandate. The new law is also against equality protection since it allows that police to use enhanced interrogation on immigrants who lack the right documents. It also bases its arguments on ethnicity, race, immigration status, and nationality. The officials also disagree with the Texas State since the SB 4 forces the local law enforcement to obey any requests that are made by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest immigrants. It also demands the sacking of officials who will support the sanctuary cities idea. More than 300 local and state authorities in different parts of the United States have policies that make them not to work with the federal immigration efforts.


The SB 4 was signed by Governor Greg Abbott on May 7, and it has had mixed reaction in the 85th Legislative session. El Paso County and Maverick Country are also against the law since they believe it will not keep the people of Texas safe. The officials believe that everyone in the state needs to feel safe whenever he or she reports a crime to the police. Discriminating the immigrants will make them lose their trust in the local authorities.