Jonah Patel
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against President Trump's travel ban, which bars people from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the US. The court narrowed the scope of the ban, stating that it could not apply to certain extended family members and refugees with connections to the US. The ruling, which deemed the ban to exceed the President's delegated authority, was put on hold pending a review by the Supreme Court. The constitutionality of the ban has been challenged in court cases across the country, with opponents arguing that it offends religious freedom and violates the no establishment clause.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Court | 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Date of ruling | 2017-02-09 |
| Type of ruling | Unanimous |
| Subject of ruling | President Trump's executive order banning travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries |
| Ruling | Ruled against the travel ban |
| Reasoning | The travel ban is "not just shortsighted, destructive, and counterproductive—it is also likely illegal" |
| Scope of ruling | Narrowed the scope of the travel ban to exempt extended family members and certain refugees |
| Next steps | The Trump administration can ask the Supreme Court to take the case |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' unanimous ruling
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, played a crucial role in reviewing and narrowing the scope of President Trump's travel ban. The court's unanimous decision affirmed that the ban went against federal law and exceeded the President's delegated authority. This ruling maintained the injunction on the travel ban, preventing its enforcement.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Judges Michael Hawkins, Ronald Gould, and Richard Paez, expressed skepticism towards the Trump administration's arguments. They challenged the notion that certain family members and refugees lacked a "bona fide relationship" with the United States. The court's decision highlighted the discriminatory nature of the travel ban, particularly towards Muslims, and ensured that those with legitimate connections to the country were exempt from the ban.
The ruling was praised by Congressman John Garamendi, who stated that it was "appropriate for the injunction to stay in place until the lawsuits are adjudicated." Governor Dannel P. Malloy also supported the ruling, asserting that it stood "against President Trump's unconstitutional travel ban." The 9th Circuit Court's decision sent a strong message against the travel ban, even as the Trump administration continued to defend its legality.
While the ruling was a victory for those opposing the travel ban, the legal battle continued, with the possibility of the case eventually reaching the United States Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit Court's unanimous decision, however, sent a clear signal that the travel ban faced significant legal hurdles and that the judiciary was pushing back against its implementation.
Who Chooses the Head of Government?
You may want to see also
The ban's constitutionality and legality
The legality and constitutionality of the travel ban have been challenged by several courts and lawyers. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, ruled against the third iteration of President Trump's travel ban, stating that it went against federal law and exceeded "the scope of his delegated authority". The court also stated that the ban constituted "nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas" and discriminated against travelers.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also narrowed the scope of the travel ban, ruling that extended family members such as grandparents and certain classes of refugees were exempt from the ban. This ruling was based on the argument that these individuals had a "'bona fide' relationship" with the United States and that the government was wrong to resolve ambiguity against them.
The constitutionality of the travel ban has also been challenged on religious grounds, with arguments that it violated the "no establishment" clause and the principle of "equal protection". Lawyers for the state of Hawaii, for instance, argued that the Supreme Court did not intend for the ban to extend to certain family members or refugees.
While some courts, such as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, have ruled against the travel ban, other courts have allowed it to stand. The Supreme Court, for example, issued a ruling in June 2017 that allowed the travel ban to go into effect pending appeal. This ruling created ambiguity about who the ban could apply to, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sought to clarify this by narrowing the scope of the ban.
China's Founding: Republic or Empire?
You may want to see also
The Trump administration's response
The Trump administration's initial response to the Ninth Circuit's ruling was to refer to it as a "'disgraceful decision'". The White House vowed to continue fighting for the travel ban, expressing confidence that the ban would ultimately be upheld in court. Trump also quoted a legal blog, Lawfare, which urged readers to disregard the appeals court's scolding of Trump and his demands for deference in cases of national security. The blog post also noted how the Ninth Circuit's ruling applied Trump's past rhetoric on the campaign trail and social media to his executive orders.
Trump issued a revised ban on March 6, which exempted Iraqis from the list of banned foreign nationals and carved out exceptions for visa and green card holders. However, this measure was also blocked by federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland. Trump reacted angrily to the Hawaii judge's injunction, vowing to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court if necessary.
The Trump administration could take several legal steps in response to the Ninth Circuit's ruling. They could ask the Supreme Court to take the case, although with the court evenly divided between liberal and conservative judges, a tie vote would uphold the ruling of the appeals court. Alternatively, Trump could issue a new executive order with a narrower scope that might be more likely to be upheld by the judicial system. For example, the appeals court panel hinted that a scaled-back version of the travel ban that allowed lawful U.S. permanent residents to enter and did not appear to single out Muslims might be upheld.
The Trump administration initially argued that the travel ban applied to lawful permanent residents, but the Ninth Circuit disagreed, noting that due process protections are not limited to citizens but apply to "all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens". The Ninth Circuit also emphasised that due process would require "notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual's ability to travel", which the government had failed to provide.
The Rule of Mary and William: Constitutional Monarchy?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The impact on visa holders and refugees
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling impacted visa holders and refugees by temporarily blocking the enforcement of two parts of the travel ban: the 90-day suspension on citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries and the 120-day suspension on accepting refugees. This decision prevented the federal government from enforcing most aspects of the ban, providing relief for those impacted by the ban, including visa holders and refugees.
The ruling affirmed that the government must continue processing and admitting eligible refugees, including those who were conditionally approved as of January 20, 2025. The court's decision allowed for the restoration of funding to refugee-serving agencies and ensured that the United States Refugee Admissions Program could continue to offer services to people seeking refuge from violence and persecution.
For visa holders, the Ninth Circuit's ruling provided a temporary reprieve from the travel ban. The court concluded that the ban likely violated the due process rights of lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visa holders. This conclusion offered protection for visa holders from the seven countries affected by the ban.
However, it is important to note that the Ninth Circuit's ruling was not the final decision on the matter. The Trump administration had the option to take further legal steps, including asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. The outcome of the legal challenge to the travel ban remained uncertain, and the potential impact on visa holders and refugees was still subject to change depending on future court rulings.
Executive Branch: Term Limits and Service Length Explained
You may want to see also
The role of the Supreme Court
Following the 9th Circuit Court's ruling, the Trump administration had several legal options, including appealing to the Supreme Court to take the case. The Supreme Court at the time comprised four liberal and four conservative judges, which could have potentially resulted in a tie vote, thus upholding the ruling of the appeals court. However, there was a possibility that the Supreme Court would not take up the case, and the legal battle would continue in lower courts.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court's role in this case was to provide a final ruling and resolve the legal dispute over the travel ban. The case highlighted the importance of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution and resolving disputes between lower courts. While the Supreme Court did not hear the case initially, it was later involved in the legal battle over the travel ban, showcasing the complex and dynamic nature of the judicial system in addressing controversial and divisive policies.
Constitution Activation: What's the Process?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the constitutionality of President Trump's travel ban.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted to block President Trump's travel ban, ruling that it goes against federal law.
Challengers to the travel ban, including lawyers for the state of Hawaii, argued that the Supreme Court did not intend for the ban to extend to some family members such as grandparents, or to a category of refugees with a contractual commitment from resettlement organizations. They also argued that the ban violated religious freedom and the "no establishment" clause.
The 9th Circuit's ruling narrowed the scope of the travel ban, exempting extended family members such as grandparents and a certain class of refugees with prior connections to the United States.
The ruling was praised by those who believed the travel ban was unconstitutional and discriminatory, while others criticized it as a big loss for the Trump administration. The Trump administration could still take legal steps to challenge the ruling, including asking the Supreme Court to take the case.
