HONOLULU: A US federal appeals court panel ruled that
President Donald Trump once again exceeded the scope of his authority
with his latest travel ban, but the judges on the 9th US Circuit Court
of Appeals put their decision on hold pending review by the US Supreme
Court, meaning the ban involving six majority Muslim countries will
remain in effect.
The 77-page ruling released late Friday
says Trump’s proclamation makes no finding whatsoever that simply being
from one of the countries cited in the ban makes someone a security
risk.
Hawaii, which is suing to stop the ban, has argued
that it will be harmful because families will be separated and
university recruitment will be hampered.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court lifted temporary lower court orders that had prevented the latest ban from taking effect.
The
status quo was maintained when the 9th Circuit stayed its decision,
said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of
Law.
The ruling was unusual, but it’s a unique case, he
said, noting the Supreme Court has not set argument dates because it has
not yet decided to grant an appeal.
“Given the
shockingly rapid volley of executive actions and court decisions, this
is surely just the latest in a long series of battles to come.”
Mary Fan, a University of Washington law school professor, said about immigration ban litigation.
The
judges focused on whether Trump had made a required finding that the
entry of people affected by the ban would be detrimental to US
interests.
Under US immigration law, such a determination
must be made before barring 150 million potential travellers from Chad,
Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, they said.
Department
of Justice spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said the agency is pleased that
the Supreme Court has already allowed the government to implement the
proclamation and keep Americans safe while the matter is litigated.
“We continue to believe that the order should be allowed to take effect in its entirety,” Ehrsam said.
In
a September proclamation, Trump said the ban was needed because the
countries don’t do a good job of verifying or sharing information about
their citizens, and thus the government “lacks sufficient information to
assess the risks they pose to the United States”.
Trump
relies on the premise that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives him
broad powers to regulate immigration, the judges said, but for the
president to block entry, he must first legally prove that person’s
entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
“National
security alone is not a ‘talismanic incantation’ that once invoked, can
support any and all exercise of executive power under” immigration law,
the decision said.
