The Ninth Court of Appeals will not rehear the case regarding President Trump’s original travel ban, the court announced Wednesday.
The decision came hours after a revised ban was blocked by a federal judge in Hawaii.
Last month, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit concluded that Trump’s initial executive order was likely unconstitutional.
The administration withdrew the order, which limited travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, and substituted it with another, barring travelers from six Muslim-majority nations and suspending the U.S. refugee program.
Following the broad injunction against the policy, the President went on the offensive, calling the judges’ impartiality into question.
“It’s a political decision, we’re going to see them in court, and I look forward to doing that,” Trump told reporters following the initial decision. “It’s a decision that we’ll win, in my opinion, very easily.”
The 9th is the largest appeals court in the country, with jurisdiction over 65.1 million people in nine states.
“That circuit is in chaos and that circuit is frankly in turmoil,” Trump said.
Earlier, Trump targeted Seattle Judge James Robart, who put a halt on the original ban, and suggested that he would be responsible if a terrorist attack occurred in the wake of his ruling.
“The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart,” Trump tweeted on Feb. 4th. “Bad people are very happy!”
In another tweet he called Robart a “so-called judge.”
On Wednesday, Trump’s inability to hold his tongue came back to bite him.
In the ruling on the revised ban, Judge Derrick Watson cited Trump and his top associates own comments about banning Muslims as examples that the executive order had religious motives.
“For instance, there is nothing ‘veiled’ about this press release,” Watson wrote, quoting a Trump campaign document titled “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
Even the dissenting judge who called on the appeals court to wipe out the initial decision for precedent’s sake, took umbrage with Trump personal attacks against the judges involved in the case.
“The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues were out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse — particularly when they came from the parties,” Judge Jay Bybee wrote. “Ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for effective advocacy.”
Bybee, even while defending his colleagues against the President’s rhetoric, argued that his fellow judges were wrong when they refused to immediately reinstate Trump’s original travel ban.
“Above all, in a democracy, we have the duty to preserve the liberty of the people by keeping the enormous powers of the national government separated,” he wrote, adding that he believes the President has the authority to block foreign travelers and courts must defer to the President’s judgment in decisions about who should be allowed in the U.S.
But Bybee continued to blast Trump for targeting his colleagues.
“Such personal attacks treat the court as though it were merely a political forum in which bargaining, compromise, and even intimidation are acceptable principles,” he wrote. “The courts of law must be more than that, or we are not governed by law at all.”
Yet the President continued his assault on the court Wednesday calling Watson’s ruling “an unprecedented judicial overreach.”
He called his new travel ban, which was meant to go into effect at midnight, a watered-down version of the first one, which he said he wished he could implement.
Trump’s initial travel ban, issued on a Friday in late January, brought chaos and protests to airports around the country as travelers from seven nations — Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen — were barred from entering even if they had prior permission to come to the U.S.
The State Department canceled up to 60,000 visas, but later reversed that decision.
Robart ordered the government to stop enforcing the ban, which also suspended the nation’s acceptance of refugees from around the world, and a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously declined to reinstate the ban.
One of the 9th Circuit judges requested an en banc hearing — meaning that 11 judges or possibly the entire panel would hear the case — to rehear the case and decide if it would set precedent.
A majority of judges voted against reconsidering the matter.
The administration subsequently rewrote the ban, emphasizing more of a national security rationale, dropping Iraq from the list of banned countries and spelling out some reasons that travelers from the listed nations might be granted waivers allowing them into the U.S. despite the policy.
“We’re going to win. We’re going to keep our citizens safe,” the President said at a rally in Nashville. “The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear.”
- Trump’s Hard Road Ahead to Save His Travel Ban
- SF Appeals Court Deals 2nd Blow To Trump Asylum Policy
- Supreme Court rules for ‘Dreamers,’ rejects Trump’s repeal of immigration program
- Appeals court deals 2nd blow to Trump asylum policy
- Trump lacked authority to use military funds for border wall construction, court rules
- Trump's use of Pentagon funds for US-Mexico border wall illegal, court rules
- Trump's mark on federal courts could last decades
- Supreme Court denies petition to hear 'sanctuary' case
- Supreme Court sides with Trump on speedy deportations of asylum-seekers
- Court says Trump’s diversion of military money to build border wall was illegal
9th Circuit Court of Appeals won’t reconsider President Trump’s original travel ban have 920 words, post on www.nydailynews.com at March 15, 2017. This is cached page on Europe Breaking News. If you want remove this page, please contact us.