Trump delays effective date of travel ban amid court battle

Alejandro Massey
June 16, 2017

On Monday, three judges on a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld an earlier decision by a Hawaii federal judge to block the government from enforcing the travel executive order.

The Trump administration is pushing back on claims that President Donald Trump's travel ban is soon set to expire amid an ongoing court battle. The Trump administration has argued that the ban is necessary to protect the United States from terrorism. The petition also asked the Supreme Court justices to determine the legality of the executive order.

The move likely delays any high court action on the administration's two emergency applications asking for the ban issued on March 6 to immediately go into effect.

Pointing to the fact that order technically states the ban would last "for 90 days from the effective date of this order", Justice Department lawyers are arguing that the 90-day clock has yet to even start, since Trump's order never took effect.

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall on Tuesday told the justices he wants time to address Monday's ruling from the federal appeals court in San Francisco.

This story has not been edited by Firstpost staff and is generated by auto-feed.

Michigan health chief charged in Flint water probe
Republican governor Rick Snyder has not been charged, despite the alleged involvement of his cabinet in suppressing information. Six officials were charged in all - five with involuntary manslaughter - according to Michigan Attorney General Bill Schutte.

Diego Costa says he isn't wanted at Chelsea anymore
Earlier, Costa told Spain's Mundo Deportivo newspaper that he would be willing to move to "any club in Spain, Italy or Brazil". Many friends called me in the last hours to ask about it, but Diego did not comment on that.

Electricity crisis will lead to 'explosion' in Gaza, Hamas warns
UNRWA spokesperson Chris Gunness told HuffPost in a statement that the organization's mandate and position is clear and unchanged. This mean the already limited amount of electricity received by Gaza homes to a number hours daily, reportedly six.

It's now second time the Trump's own remarks have influenced the courts to contradict the executive order. "I think we can all attest that these are very risky times and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States". They also found that the president's order violated USA immigration law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality.

The decision issued by the 9 Circuit Court on June 12, 2017, was unanimous. The case similarly found that a 120-day ban on admitting refugees also violated the Immigration and Naturalization Act without relying on the Frist Amendment's Establishment Clause to do so. "We welcome this ruling and believe it and the previous rulings in different courts outline a clear path that the Supreme Court should follow".

The terms of the revised executive order state that a ban will be applied to travelers from any country that does not cooperate with US officials to determine whether that country provides sufficient information about its nationals to assure "that the individual seeking the [visa, admission, or other] benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat". Because he issued the ban back in March, those 90 days are up this week.

The Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case on Wednesday.

The Supreme Court's new briefing schedule for the combined cases lets the government submit its final brief on June 21.

Other reports by Free-Prsite

Discuss This Article

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER