The appeals court considers the legality of Trump’s latest travel ban



[ad_1]


  Federal police officers are shown outside of a federal court in Seattle. | AP Photo

Federal police stand in front of a federal court on December 6 in Seattle as they watch a nearby protest as three judges gather to hear arguments about President Donald Trump's travel ban. Ted S. Warren / AP Photo

The Ninth Circuit panel fights against the president's restrictions aimed mainly at Muslim-majority countries

By JOSH GERSTEIN

] A federal appeals court gave a slightly more friendly reception on Wednesday to President Donald Trump's latest travel ban, just two days after the Supreme Court allowed the policy to be fully implemented for the first time.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals met in Seattle to hear arguments on a precautionary measure against various travel restrictions that Trump issued in September to citizens of six major Muslim countries, as well as to Korea. North and Venezuela.

Continuing story below

Judge Michael Hawkins noted that, unlike two v ersions of Trump's travel ban policy, the last iteration followed a 90-day study on veto practices for foreign travelers arriving to the USA UU and about deficiencies in the exchange of information by foreign governments.

"This is a bit different, is not it, is that?" Hawkins said. "The two previous versions of the executive orders were based, a bit, on speculation. Now we have had a period of 90 days in which the government and its agencies … have pbaded and partly rely on the information provided by the past administration determined that certain countries in the world can not say if person A is really the person A. What's wrong with that? … Would you trust Kim Jong Un to say that this person is really this person? Take it? "

A lawyer representing the state of Hawaii in his challenge to the ban, Mitchell Reich, noted that despite the concern professed by the Trump administration over the identity verification of visa applicants, the new policy allows many people from the affected countries come in anyway.

"The government has not identified any respect for which the existing case-by-case verification process is failing," Reich said. "For each of these countries, the The government is allowing many of these people to come in. "

There was little discussion in the court session about the promise of Trump's campaign to ban Muslims from entering the US Critics uphold the new travel ban , like its predecessors, is an attempt by the president to fulfill that promise.

At one point, another Hawaiian lawyer, Neal Katayl, seemed to take that matter completely off the table.

"I do not think I should go into anything about the president trying here," the lawyer said.

However, later in the argument Katayl seemed to allude to the tweets that Trump sent last week that contain anti-Muslim videos previously published by a British nationalist right-wing group.

"The record only got worse since we last saw each other," Katayl said. "The president has not moved away from his campaign promises, he can even see what was said last week as a kind of revealing indication and a way of uniting the past with the present."

Much of Wednesday's argument seemed to trigger whether a provision in the federal law that allows the president to suspend the entry of certain groups of foreigners deemed "harmful" to the United States requires that those who are denied entry into reality They seem to represent some danger or if Trump can take advantage of that provision to seek greater cooperation from the Department of Justice attorney, Hashim Mooppan, said that many previous presidents used the same power to block travel to achieve foreign policy goals.

"This is precisely what, for example, President Carter found in relation to the Iranian hostage crisis and what President Reagan found regarding a diplomatic dispute with Cuba," Mooppan said. "There was no argument, no suggestion that the nationals themselves presented any damage."

Although he did not mention Trump directly, Judge Richard Paez suggested that it was different from the president's repeated badertions that his policy is a way to keep terrorists out of the United States

"The argument that we have seen, that we have seen throughout these various iterations of the proclamation and the previous executive order is that in certain countries [are] radical Muslims who do not want to enter this country and who exercise authority under [the law] is a form to keep them away, "Paez said.

"Your honor, the proclamation's findings are different from what you just articulated," Mooppan said, arguing that this was more a final goal of the effort than something that would be directly achieved through travel restrictions.

Hawkins noted that the administration continues to argue that while the legal provision used to issue the travel limits refers to the "entry" blocking in the US. UU., Officials have the right to stop issuing. of visas to people that the president will not admit when they arrive at the border or another port of entry.

"We return to Tom Hanks' example of being stateless inside the airport terminal," the judge said, referring to the 2004 film, "The Terminal," about a fictitious foreign tourist trapped at JFK airport after having permission to enter or leave the country has been denied.

"It is the traditional practice that if someone is not admissible, he does not get immigrant visas," said Mooppan.

The latest travel ban policy placed what the administration calls "adapted" restrictions to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as to North Korea and Venezuela. [19659007] Judges in Hawaii and Maryland issued orders blocking much of Trump's latest movement. The Ninth Circuit panel that heard the case on Wednesday issued an order last month allowing more restrictions to enter, but excluding people with "good faith", family, business or educational ties to the United States

. The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Monday that allows the entire policy to be applied until the current litigation is resolved. Two of the court's liberal judges, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, disagreed.

The three judges on the Ninth Circuit panel are appointed by President Bill Clinton.

The judge overseeing the arguments, Ronald Gould, noted the Supreme Court's decision to move forward on the case with the shipment.

"We will try to get an opinion as soon as possible," he said. "I think the Supreme Court has asked us to, so we must comply."

[ad_2]
Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.