- ticket title
- Enhanced Technologies Help E-commerce Platforms and Merchants Deliver a More Intelligent Live Streaming Experience
- شرركة ماكسير تحوز على أول موافقة تقليدية على جهاز PAPR100-N من مؤسسة نيوش
- دار سك العملة الكندية الملكية تحتفي بالذكرى السنوية الـ 150 للأقاليم الشمالية الغربية في أحدث مجموعة من عملاتها المعدنية
- معرض استيراد دولي أكبر وأعلى جودة في نوفمبر 2020
- R.J. O’Brien Acquires Global Interdealer Broker Lombard Forte Securities
President Donald Trump issued an executive order issued January 27 that barred citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen - from entering the U.S. for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halted refugees from Syria.
On February 3, the state of Washington and state of Minnesota (plaintiffs) filed a motion challenging the president's executive order, maintaining that the travel ban is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs sought a nationwide temporary restraining order asking the court to immediately halt the implementation of the travel ban while the courts hear arguments and decide on the constitutional issue - a process that could take weeks and eventually require a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Court Judge James Robart had to decide whether the executive order was in the public's best interest, whether people could suffer irreparable harm with the continuation of the ban, and whether the plaintiffs had a strong chance of winning on the constitutional issue. He decided in favor of the two states and granted a temporary restraining order, forcing the government to resume processing visitors as it did before the travel ban while the larger issues are decided.
The Department of Justice filed a notice to appeal Robart's ruling. Officials brought the case to the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The DOJ argued that the judge's decision improperly "second-guesses the president's national security judgment."
The appeals court denied DOJ's request to immediately restore the travel ban, pending full consideration of the motion. The court said it would weigh in on whether to lift Robart's ruling after receiving additional briefs from the administration and plaintiffs.
What is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals trying to decide?
Those briefs have now been delivered, followed by oral arguments which were presented Tuesday. The issue in front of the court is not whether the travel ban is constitutional, but whether it will remain suspended while the constitutional case makes its way through the courts.
The options available to the three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals include upholding the lower court's stay of the travel ban, striking it down, or sending the case back to the lower court for further consideration.
What could happen after the appeals court's decision?
If the restraining order is upheld by the appeals court, the Trump administration can appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Judge Robart's restraining order is lifted, travelers from the seven Muslim-majority countries will again be banned from entering the country. However the Trump administration has said it will make exceptions for green card holders and at least some individuals with dual nationality. That decision could also be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Other challenges to the travel ban have been filed in other courts including in New York and Virginia. Rulings in those cases are expected to be announced in the coming weeks.
Source: Voice of America