President Trump’s revised Temporary Travel Ban restricting entry into the United States for people from six Muslims countries for a duration of 90 days is facing another challenge at a hearing on Monday before a federal Appeals Court in Virginia.
Arguments by government Lawyers appealing the ruling will be presented before the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals filled by Obama-appointed liberal judges. The revised Temporary Travel Ban was blocked by Maryland–based Judge Theodore Chuang, a staunch Obama ally and appointee.
Judge Chuang blocked part of the March 6 Order which restricted entry into the United States from six predominantly Muslim countries namely, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Map depicting countries listed on the Temporary Travel Ban. Credit: FOX
President Trump faces stiff resistance and challenge from immigration advocates and civil liberties groups who contend that his Executive Orders target and discriminate against Muslims.
Challengers of the Temporary Travel Ban and the first Executive Order point to then Candidate Trump’s campaign speeches calling for a temporary ban on Muslims into the United States and citing those as reason to block the Order. Statements by then Candidate Trump have been used in legal challenges to prove that regardless of other reasons, the travel ban should be resisted because it is deemed ‘unconstitutional’.
But unlike the first round of court battles in February, which sent the White House back to the drawing board to draft a new executive order, administration officials and their allies have reason to believe they are on firmer legal ground now.
Some of the people protesting President Trump’s Temporary Travel Ban for 90 days.
The March order was Trump’s second effort to craft ‘Extreme Vetting’ and travel restrictions. The first Executive Order issued on January 27 led to mass protests in the US and other countries around the world, causing chaos at airports before being finally blocked by courts.
The second Order which was an amendment of the first one and was intended to overcome the legal problems posed by the original ban. It suffered the same fate and was also blocked by Obama-appointed judges before it could go into effect on March 16.
Another federal judge in Hawaii, another Obama-appointee, close associate and ally blocked the entry restrictions and part of the order that suspended entry of refugee applicants for 120 days. An appeal in that case will be considered by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 15, the same Court which ruled on the original order.
The challengers in the Maryland are six U.S. citizens, who say the ban would prevent family members from entering the United States.
President Trump’s Executive Order on Extreme Vetting and his revised Temporary Travel Ban faces challenges from pro-immigration advocates and civil liberties group who advocate for unchecked Open Borders.
The administration said in court papers that the claims are “speculative and not ripe” with none of them being able to show a “concrete, imminent injury” traceable to the order.
Government lawyers said the court should not base its findings on comments made by Trump during the 2016 election campaign about his intention to impose a so-called Muslim ban because those statements were made before he was sworn in as president on Jan. 20.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the challengers, said in court papers that Trump’s comments before the election cannot be ignored.
“President Trump publicly committed himself to an indefensible goal: banning Muslims from coming to the United States,” the ACLU lawyers wrote.
Whatever the court rules, the case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which would make the final decision.
