Another Court Rules Against Trump’s Revised Travel Ban
The ruling affirmed the decision from a federal judge in Hawaii
Another federal appeals court on Monday has ruled against President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban which aims to limit travelers from a handful of Muslim-majority countries.
In the ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco supports an initial rejection from a federal judge in Hawaii, which stated that president’s executive order was unconstitutional.
“We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress,” the court ruled. “In suspending the entry of more than 180 million nationals from six countries, suspending the entry of all refugees, and reducing the cap on the admission of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year, the President did not meet the essential precondition to exercising his delegated authority: The President must make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”
By denying the president’s updated travel ban, the one that Trump criticized his own Justice Department for last week, the Ninth Circuit again stymied the president’s attempt at making one of his promises a reality. In February, the Ninth Circuit did the same to the original travel ban proposal, which was later updated.
The blocked travel ban, which would impose a 90-day suspension on travel from six Muslim-majority countries, is still expected to be presented to the Supreme Court. Last week, Trump called the language in the updated proposal “watered down” and “politically correct,” and criticized his Justice Department for not sticking with the original ban.