Donald Trump’s Muslim ban ‘exceeded his authority’; court says
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to reinstate President Trump's original executive order on travel. Photo: Getty
A US appeals court has used Donald Trump’s own tweets against him in its ruling against the President’s temporary travel ban on people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries.
The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was reviewing a March ruling by a Hawaii-based federal judge that blocked parts of President Trump’s executive order imposing the ban.
The ruling comes after the Trump administration on June 1 separately asked the US Supreme Court to block the Hawaii and Richmond rulings and revive the ban on travellers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
“We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress,” the three judges on the Ninth US Circuit, wrote in findings released Tuesday morning (AEST).
“(I)mmigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show.”
The court cited a tweet posted by President Trump’s last week on the travel ban.
In his post, Mr Trump said: “That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!”
That's right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017
“Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the ‘countries’ that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s ‘travel ban,'” the court’s finding said.
The court also pointed to a recent statement by White House spokesman Sean Spice that Mr Trump’s numerous and varied tweets are “considered official statements by the President of the United States”.
President Trump also posted a tweet on June 5 that described his March 6 executive order, which replaced an earlier January 27 order that also was blocked by courts, as a “watered down, politically correct” version of his original plan.
The Trump administration’s first travel ban, issued on January 27, led to widespread protests before it was blocked by the courts.
The second order on March 6 was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, but it was blocked by judges before it could go into effect.
The state of Hawaii in a court challenge, argued that its universities and tourism industry had been harmed by the ban.
Hawaii’s suit, and a similar one filed by individuals in the state of Maryland, argued that the order violated federal immigration law and a section of the US Constitution’s First Amendment, which prohibits the Government from favouring or disfavouring any particular religion.
Hawaii federal Judge Derrick Watson blocked President Trump’s executive order ordering the ban, as well as a directive that suspended the entry of refugee applicants for 120 days and other instructions for the government to study tougher vetting procedures.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the block on President Trump’s travel ban and a cap on refugees, but vacated part of the injunction in order to allow the government to conduct internal reviews on vetting.
Mr Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” during the 2016 presidential election.
Supreme Court urgings
The Trump administration on June 1 filed an emergency request to the US Supreme Court seeking to reinstate the March 6 executive order.
The state of Hawaii on Tuesday morning urged the Supreme Court to deny the emergency request to reinstate the ban.
Hawaii’s lawyers told the Supreme Court in a written submission that President Trump made “a series of barely veiled statements linking the orders to his promised Muslim ban”.
The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017
If he had not done so, the order may not violate the Constitution, the lawyers said.
– With agencies
