Court Upholds Stay of Trump Travel Ban

A federal appellate panel on Thursday upheld a temporary restraining order preventing enforcement of a ban on travel from some Muslim-majority nations, dealing a blow to the Trump administration and its highest-profile action to date.

The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco concluded that the Trump administration, in defending against a challenge brought by Washington and Minnesota, did not show "a likelihood of success" at trial – a key benchmark for granting such an emergency order. The states had argued that the travel restrictions were harmful to their residents, businesses and universities. Jan. 29, 2017 | Washington, D.C. | Thousands of demonstrators rallied against President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration from Muslim-majority nations during a march from the White House to the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. Thousands Protest Immigration Ban EXPAND GALLERY The ruling was solely concerned with the restraining order granted last week by District Judge James Robart, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, and it did not consider the merits of the case. Robart's injunction halted key portions of Trump's executive order from Jan. 27 that suspended the U.S. refugee program for 120 days, prohibited Syrian refugees indefinitely and halted entry for 90 days by most citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland, an appointee of President Barack Obama, issued the decision along with Senior Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton, an appointee of President George W. Bush, and Circuit Judge William C. Canby, appointed by President Jimmy Carter. "The impact of the executive order was immediate and widespread. It was reported that thousands of visas were immediately canceled, hundreds of travelers with such visas were prevented from boarding airplanes bound for the United States or denied entry on arrival, and some travelers were detained," the court wrote in its opinion. By contrast, it later added, the government "pointed to no evidence" that immigrants from any of the seven countries explicitly affected by the executive order have carried out a terrorist attack in the U.S. Trump administration lawyers had argued that the nationwide injunction was essentially "unreviewable" because such a review would infringe on the president's authority over national security and immigration. But the court flatly rejected that argument. "There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy," the judges wrote. "In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the president's policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action."