Trump’s Revised Travel Ban Rejected

A week into Donald Trump’s presidency, the former candidate made good on one of his central campaign promises: to increase national defense by limiting the entry of Muslims into the United States. The executive order was almost immediately blocked after thousands of protesters took to the streets and foreign travelers were left stranded in airports.

President Trump responded to the ruling by revising the executive order. Originally, the ban suspended entry for travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries including Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days. Under this order, refugees from Syria were totally banned and America’s refugee program was to be suspended for 120 days and thereafter cut from 120,000 annual refugees to 50,000.

The revised executive order, issued on March 6, allowed for case-by-case exceptions for incoming travelers and allowed for Iraqi travelers to enter the country. Mention to religion, specifically Islam, was taken out of the order. However, the refugee program was still severely reduced and Syrian refugees were still banned as well as travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va. released a decision on Thursday rejecting the revised travel ban with a vote of 10 to 3 with two judges abstaining. In the court’s 205 page ruling the judges stated, “[the order] speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drops with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

A well known statement made by Donald Trump on the campaign trail helped lead many of the judges to their decision. Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory recounted Trump’s call for the “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” which revealed his anti-Muslim sentiment as well as intent to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Judge Gregory went on to write that such religious hostility violates the First Amendment’s right on the freedom to exercise religion.

The Trump administration had urged the court to ignore language used on the campaign trail in making their decision as it was before the president had taken office. However, Judge Gregory believes that the comments Trump made while running for office can be taken into account in a ruling. The Judge states, “the government has repeatedly asked this court to ignore evidence…and blindly defer to executive action” and that “constitutional rights, values and principles are at stake.”

Omar Jadwat, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, believes that the verdict was a just one and that it helped secure fundamental rights. Jadwat had argued the Trump administration’s appeal of the executive on behalf of people and groups against the travel ban. He believes the ban violates the constitution by going against the clauses that protect all of by “disfavoring or condemning” a religion.

Three Republican appointed judges dissented and two abstained their vote. One of the dissenting votes came from Judge Paul V. Niemeyer who believes that the majority made a mistake in considering Trump’s language used on the campaign trail in making their decision. Judge Niemeyer predicts that if brought to the Supreme Court, the Justices will disagree with the majority’s use of campaign statements to reach a verdict.

“The real losers in this case are the millions of individual Americans whose security is threatened on a daily basis by those who seek to do us harm,” Judge Dennis W. Shedd, another dissenting judge, claims.

The White House issued a statement claiming that the court’s rejection was a danger to national security. Attorney General Jeff Session responded to the rejection of the revised executive order by saying the administration would appeal to the nation’s highest court, the Supreme Court.
Featured Image via Wikimedia