On Monday, June 12, 2017, a second federal appeals court ruled that the revised travel ban put forth by the Justice Department was unconstitutional, causing another setback for the Trump Administration’s effort to try and inhibit members of certain countries from entering the United States.
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California came to the conclusion that the executive order was unconstitutional based on statutory grounds, saying that the President had overstepped the power given to him by Congress in decisions based on national security. A federal law grants the president the authority to exclude immigrants or foreigners from entering if they cause a detriment to the United States. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump did not give adequate support for his order. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia put forth their ruling in late May, stating that the grounds for unconstitutional removal rested on the violation that the revised ban violated First Amendment’s barring the government from an established government religion. Both courts, nevertheless, came to the same conclusion.
The previous ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the 90 day ban of immigrants entering the country from seven majority Muslim countries, but the Ninth Court of Appeals ruling goes farther, removing a 120-day suspension of the nation’s refugee program and a 50,000-person cap on refugee admissions in 2017, down from 110,000. This was in the eyes of the Ninth Circuit Court to be an attempt to undermind Muslim individuals.
OUR VERDICT : The Trump Administration already has sought an analysis from the Supreme Court based on the Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling, but the ruling from San Francisco places a bigger case against the travel ban. At the moment, no parts of the travel ban can be enacted and implemented ; therefore, if the Supreme court hears this case, the mounting evidence against this executive order through the rulings by the Appeals Courts would most likely strike down the ban entirely. It also doesn’t support the case when Trump tweeted that the order was meant to be a ban, and should mot be referred to in any other terms.