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
June12, 2017
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
No comments:
Post a Comment