Rabat - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 10-3 partisan split that Trump’s revised “travel ban” is likely in violation of the Constitution of the United Sates. The ruling upheld a previous decision from US District court that blocked the ban.
Rabat – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 10-3 partisan split that Trump’s revised “travel ban” is likely in violation of the Constitution of the United Sates. The ruling upheld a previous decision from US District court that blocked the ban.
According to the 205-page ruling decided on Thursday, the Appeals Court concluded that the revised travel ban issued on March 6, “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.” The decision is a blow for the Trump administration and the travel ban which has repeatedly been blocked by US courts.
In response, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions promised to continue to defend the ban indicating that the Department of Justice would appeal the case to the Supreme Court. In a statement, Sessions pledged “to vigorously defend the power and duty of the Executive Branch to protect the people of this country from danger, and will seek review of this case in the United States Supreme Court.”
This is the latest chapter in a series of legal disputes that have plagued the implementation of the travel ban. Both President Trump’s first executive order in January and his revised order issued in March were almost immediately blocked in court and led to widespread public backlash.
At the heart of the controversy is the reasoning behind the ban. During his campaign, Trump publically stated that he wanted to bar Muslims from entering the United States indicating that the ban is religiously motivated.
The government, however, maintains that the countries impacted by the ban were not chosen because they were majority Muslim nations but out of concern for national security and terrorism risks.
When faced with these arguments, the Chief Justice Roger L. Gregory of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote for the majority that the government’s “asserted national security interest… appears to be a post hoc, secondary justification for an executive action rooted in religious animus and intended to bar Muslims from this country.”
In his dissent, Judge Paul V. Niemeyer defended his decision explaining that the executive order must be considered “on its face” and is thus “entirely without constitutional fault.”
With the case now heading to the Supreme Court, it is difficult to predict what will happen. The Trump administration might fare better as five of the nine Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republications although the justices may not vote along partisan lines.