 |
| President Donald Trump |
A
US appeals court questioned whether Donald Trump's travel and
immigration ban is intentionally discriminatory against Muslims, as
the the president's most controversial order faced its biggest legal
test on Tuesday night.
Three judges at the appeals court in San Francisco have been charged
with deliberating on whether a restraining order issued by a lower court
should remain in effect while a challenge to the ban proceeds.
Opponents of the ban argued that
Mr Trump's decision had "unleashed chaos" at airports in America and
around the world, as thousands – including green card holders – found
themselves banned from boarding their planes or detained on arrival.
They also argued that it was intentionally discriminatory against
Muslims. But Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an
attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota what evidence he
had that the ban was motivated by religion. The two states are suing to
invalidate the ban.
"I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious
animus when in fact the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected."
Only 15 percent of the world's Muslims are affected, the judge said,
citing his own calculations. He added that the "concern for terrorism
from those connected to radical Islamic sects is hard to deny."
The justice department also countered to the panel of judges that the
president alone has the power to decide who can enter or remain in the
United States.
August
Fientje, a lawyer for the government, said it was "extraordinary" that
the court would "enjoin the president's national security
determination".
The judges adjourned the hearing, deferring their decision on the high-stakes legal battle, giving several more days of reprieve to foreigners from the seven Muslim-majority countries, and certain refugees, whom Mr Trump's executive order blocked from entering the country. A decision is expected this week.
Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, had insisted earlier in the day that Mr Trump was confident his travel ban would be reinstated in the afternoon.
Mr Spicer says that the president understands and believes in the separation of powers, and judicial integrity.
But he insisted Mr Trump's ban was lawful, and would be restored.
"What we need to do is to remind people that the Earth is a very dangerous place these days," he said.
"That Isis is trying to do us harm. And that the president's commitment is to keep the country safe."
The court said it will issue a decision "as soon as possible". Whichever way it rules, it is likely to then be appealed to the Supreme Court.
As well as Washington state and Minnesota, the plaintiffs in the case, fifteen other states – including New York, California, Massachusetts and Virginia – filed briefs to the court arguing that reinstating the ban would cause harm to key institutions including public universities and businesses that "sustain our economies".
More than 100 tech firms, including Google, Facebook and Apple, have joined the legal battle against the executive order temporarily arguing that the restrictions interfere with hiring and business operations.
They argued in an amicus brief to the court immigrants play a disproportionate role in establishing companies, setting up over a quarter of all new US businesses between 2006 and 2010.
The judges adjourned the hearing, deferring their decision on the high-stakes legal battle, giving several more days of reprieve to foreigners from the seven Muslim-majority countries, and certain refugees, whom Mr Trump's executive order blocked from entering the country. A decision is expected this week.
Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, had insisted earlier in the day that Mr Trump was confident his travel ban would be reinstated in the afternoon.
Mr Spicer says that the president understands and believes in the separation of powers, and judicial integrity.
But he insisted Mr Trump's ban was lawful, and would be restored.
"What we need to do is to remind people that the Earth is a very dangerous place these days," he said.
"That Isis is trying to do us harm. And that the president's commitment is to keep the country safe."
The court said it will issue a decision "as soon as possible". Whichever way it rules, it is likely to then be appealed to the Supreme Court.
As well as Washington state and Minnesota, the plaintiffs in the case, fifteen other states – including New York, California, Massachusetts and Virginia – filed briefs to the court arguing that reinstating the ban would cause harm to key institutions including public universities and businesses that "sustain our economies".
More than 100 tech firms, including Google, Facebook and Apple, have joined the legal battle against the executive order temporarily arguing that the restrictions interfere with hiring and business operations.
They argued in an amicus brief to the court immigrants play a disproportionate role in establishing companies, setting up over a quarter of all new US businesses between 2006 and 2010.
Earlier
on Tuesday the vice president, Mike Pence, was forced to go to the
Capitol to vote in favour of Mr Trump's education secretary, Betsy
DeVos, and secure her nomination. Two Republican senators, Susan Collins
(Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) became the first senators to oppose
a Trump Cabinet pick, joining all Democrats.
Mr Pence said on Twitter that his vote for Ms DeVos "was the easiest vote" he ever cast.
Chuck Schumer, the Democrat leader, immediately reacted with disgust.
Mr Pence said on Twitter that his vote for Ms DeVos "was the easiest vote" he ever cast.
Chuck Schumer, the Democrat leader, immediately reacted with disgust.
Mr Trump
spent the morning meeting with sheriffs and with veterans' affairs
leaders, and the afternoon welcoming the winning Super Bowl team to the
White House.
Two of the players, however, have said they are boycotting the visit in protest at Mr Trump's policies.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment