On June 12 a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision upholding a Hawaiian court’s order temporarily halting enforcement of Trump’s travel ban. In contrast to other circuit decisions upholding similar injunctions, the Ninth Circuit panel didn’t rely on arguments about the ban’s constitutionality. Instead, they ruled that Trump’s executive order may have violated provisions of immigration law. For example, the banning of people from six specific countries seems to go against the requirement in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”—TPOI editor
|Protest against Muslim ban at JFK airiport, January 2017|
By Garrett Epps, The Atlantic
In mid-June of a typical year, Supreme Court justices and their clerks are burning the midnight oil in the comforting knowledge that soon all involved will be happily winging off to vacation destinations, leaving controversy temporarily behind.
That happy prospect is complicated this year, however, by the June 1 arrival in the Court’s in-box of Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Program, the East Coast-based challenge to what President Trump himself adamantly insists on calling his “travel ban” on entry of persons from six majority-Muslim countries. The Court almost certainly will have to decide before leaving town whether to hear the case (hint: it will) and if so, when.
Justices contemplating this case may feel that they are staring into a labyrinth of potential missteps and institutional dangers. On Monday, their fellow judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw them a map of an escape route, if they care to take it.[...]
Read the full article:
Dowload the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision:http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/12/17-15589.pdf