Gov't wants more time to address second travel ban ruling

Violet Tucker
June 16, 2017

For the first time since he was elected, President Donald Trump is set to attend the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, presenting a potentially awkward moment as the court weighs what to do about his contentious executive order that attempts to restrict U.S. entry by people from six Muslim-majority countries.

An executive order can not be divorced from its intent, and if the motivation behind it wasn't sufficiently clear before, Trump's recent tweetstorm of complaints about the "politically correct" version of the travel ban the Justice Department crafted (at his behest) after the initial version was struck down confirms that his intent hasn't changed.

"The President was clear in his landmark speech in Saudi Arabia: this is not about religion; it is about national security". The court is now considering an emergency request from the administration seeking to put its travel ban into effect while litigation continues.

Federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii blocked Trump's 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall today told the justices he wants time to address Monday's ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

More news: McGregor fight is finally on
More news: UT alumnus working for Rep. Roger Williams injured in shooting
More news: Mayor promises Stanley Cup parade, but plans unclear so far

This story has not been edited by Firstpost staff and is generated by auto-feed. "We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"

The terms of the revised executive order state that a ban will be applied to travelers from any country that does not cooperate with US officials to determine whether that country provides sufficient information about its nationals to assure "that the individual seeking the [visa, admission, or other] benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat". The Fourth Circuit cited religious discrimination and intolerance as the basis for the ruling and used the Establishment Clause against the executive order.

The White House released a memorandum on Wednesday indicating the effective date of the revised travel ban, originally March 16, is now "delayed or tolled until those injunctions are lifted or stayed". The courts, however, seem to be undivided in their stance on the travel ban as yet again, an appeal made by the administration was trashed by the federal court of appeals.

The judges pointed to a June 6 tweet by Trump saying the order was aimed at "dangerous countries". Whatever the Supreme Court does in this case, we probably haven't heard the end of the president's efforts to fulfill one of the basest, most un-American promises of his campaign.

Hawaii, which challenged the ban and won in the appeals court, is permitted to file its own brief on June 20, meaning the court is unlikely to act on the emergency application until next week at the earliest.

Other reports by MaliBehiribAe

Discuss This Article

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER