The Trump administration on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the latest travel ban to take full effect.
A federal appeals court ruling last week allowed President Donald Trump’s newest version of the ban to partially take effect. That ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the administration to ban people from six mostly Muslim countries unless they have a “bona fide” relationship with someone in the U.S.
Last month, a federal judge in Hawaii had blocked most of Trump’s third travel ban just before it was due to take effect. A judge in Maryland separately blocked it to a lesser degree, saying Trump could bar people from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen as long as they did not have “bona fide” relationships with people or organizations already in the U.S.
The travel ban also applies to travelers from North Korea and to some Venezuelan government officials and their families, but the lawsuits did not challenge those restrictions.
The application filed Monday by the U.S. Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to put the Hawaii judge’s ruling on hold.
Preventing the president from enforcing “his national-security and foreign-relations judgment will cause ongoing irreparable harm to the government and the public, especially by requiring the executive to disregard the identified inadequacies and by undermining the proclamation’s goal of inducing cooperation by other nations,” the government’s application said.
If granted, the full ban would be in effect while the government’s appeal makes its way through the courts.
Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin said Monday, “We look forward to the Supreme Court’s review of this matter, and to the oral argument before the court of appeals in two weeks.”
Arguments are scheduled for Dec. 6 at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle. The Maryland case is due to be argued before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 8.
In a separate 9th Circuit ruling Monday, a request by six states to intervene in the Hawaii lawsuit was denied. California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and Washington filed a motion last month asking to be parties in Hawaii’s lawsuit. They agree with Hawaii that the ban is unconstitutional.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
One Response
But the ban is not very effective since most people from those countries coming to the US are refugees from fanatical Islam (i.e. on our side, people the US should be encouraging), and most terrorists come other countries. The best defense against the ban being called “anti-Muslim” is that the ban doesn’t affect major countries with large Muslim populations such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Russia even though those are the countries where most transnational terrorists originate, meaning the ban is not anti-Muslim, but merely ineffective.