Trump immigration ruling not until Thursday at the earliest
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will release its ruling on President Trump’s immigration ban on Thursday at the earliest, and it will provide advance notice to the public.
The website Politico reported on Wednesday afternoon that a court spokesperson said the media will get notice between 60 minutes and 90 minutes before the findings and orders are announced from the three-judge panel that considered the case of State of Washington v. Trump on Tuesday afternoon.
The widely anticipated action on a temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge in Seattle could see President Trump’s executive order reinstated, or all or parts of Trump’s executive order stayed until the case heads to the United States Supreme Court, goes back to the Seattle-based court of federal judge James Robart, or is possibly considered by more Ninth Circuit judges.
Senior Judge William C. Canby Jr. (in Phoenix), Senior Judge Richard Clifton (in Honolulu) and Judge Michelle Taryn Friedland (in San Francisco) heard arguments in a phone conference about the executive order signed by President Trump on January 27.
The executive order directed federal agencies to issue a 90-day suspension of entry into the United States for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The order also barred entry of all refugees into the United States for 120 days, and it barred Syrian refugees indefinitely.
Robart ordered a temporary stop to parts of the order from going into effect. Robart issued the temporary restraining order (or TRO) until he could weigh further arguments, but he made it clear that he had serious doubts about the constitutionality of the executive order.
The Justice Department appealed Robart’s order to the Ninth Circuit, arguing the TRO was too broad and it went against the President’s powers, as granted to him by Congress. It also has proposed that parts of Robart’s TRO could remain in effect if they apply to foreign nationals who already have ties to the U.S. but are temporarily abroad or plan to travel in the future.
Washington state, supported by Minnesota and Hawaii, has made several arguments demanding Robart’s order remain in place. It cited Trump’s campaign promises to ban Muslims from the United States, the economic impact on Washington state brought by the executive order, and harm brought to the state’s system of public universities as causing the need for Judge Robart’s order.
Recent Stories on Constitution Daily
Trump’s own words a factor on immigration ban’s legal fate?
