Trump visiting Supreme Court as justices weigh travel ban

Posted June 16, 2017

The White House released a memorandum Wednesday declaring that the effective date of the president's executive order banning travelers from six Muslim-majority countries "is delayed or tolled" until all relevant court injunctions "are lifted or stayed".

President Donald Trump's own tweet regarding his "travel ban" has enabled the court of appeal to obstruct the controversial plan. The judges said that Congress had given the president great power in immigration decisions but that Trump had not shown national security warranted the actions he had taken.

The ruling also states: "A reasonable, objective observer - enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance - would conclude that the executive order was issued with a goal to disfavor a particular religion".

If the case was moot, the nine justices would have no reason to rule on it and lower court rulings against the administration would remain in place.The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the Trump administration more time to file papers responding to an appeals court ruling on Monday that upheld a block on the travel ban.

The president's revised order seeks to ban travel from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for at least 90 days, and temporarily halt all refugee applications for 120 days.

The decision by a unanimous three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals helps keep the travel ban blocked and deals Trump a second big legal defeat on the policy in less than three weeks.

This story has not been edited by Firstpost staff and is generated by auto-feed. But the case also underlies a disturbing truth: Even if opponents succeed in stopping President Donald Trump from implementing this particular version of the Muslim ban, the fight over the issue is far from over.

Chair of the Committee on Migration for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin said he was "heartened" by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. The state of Hawaii has suggested a shorter briefing schedule. That ruling said the executive order violated USA immigration law.

"And yet again, these revisions underline that the one thing the president has consistently wanted throughout is a Muslim ban", he added. "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 new Supreme Court brief, filed June 9 and signed by attorney Barnaby Zall, Allen Dickerson and Zac Morgan of CCP, said using Trump's campaign statements to fight the travel ban would damage the ability of future candidates to convey their messages to voters.