Federal Judge Rules Against Second Travel Ban Proposal

A trio of federal appellate judges in San Francisco on Monday ruled against President Donald Trump’s second try at imposing a so-called “travel ban” that would restrict refugees and people from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously upheld an earlier decision by a federal judge in Hawaii to block the government from enforcing Trump’s executive order.

“The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) gives the President broad powers to control the entry of aliens, and to take actions to protect the American public,” the judges wrote in their opinion. “But immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show. The President’s authority is subject to certain statutory and constitutional restraints.”

Trump, the judges wrote, “exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress” and they disputed his claim that there weren’t adequate safeguards in place to keep terrorists out.

“There is no finding that present vetting standards are inadequate, and no finding that absent the improved vetting procedures there likely will be harm to our national interests,” the judges wrote. “These identified reasons do not support the conclusion that the entry of nationals from the six designated countries would be harmful to our national interests.”

In their opinion, the judges also cited Trump’s Tweets in which he declared “we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries” and a declaration by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer that Trump’s tweets are “considered official statements” by the President of the United States.