9th circuit court gives strong argument against Trump's newest travel ban

From left: Judges William Canby, Michelle T. Ferdinand and Richard R. Clifton of the 9th Circuit Court of appeals issued the latest judicial opinions of Donald Trump's travel ban.

THE NINTH U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday, (Dec. 22) that the third attempt of Donald Trump to legalize his travel ban violates federal law.

However, the three-judge panel wrote that the ban's "indefinite entry suspensions constitute nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas." By focusing on "nationality," the judges added a new argument against Trumps's executive order described in the lower courts as a Muslim ban.

Apparently, to override the appearance of a Muslim-ban, last September, Trump's lawyers added North Korea and Venezuela to the list of targeted countries that also include Iran, Chad, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen.

The San Francisco-based court's strong critique of Trump's executive also said that Trump may have exceeded his authority.

However, the decision rendered just before the Christmas weekend will have no immediate effect because of a temporary ruling the U.S. Supreme Court issued earlier this month allowing the government to fully implement the ban as it appeals a pair of injunctions issued against the policy.

“Discrimination has no place in our immigration system, and the Ninth Circuit’s decision today reminds us of this,” said Gadeir Abbas, Senior Litigation Attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  “This decision is just the latest example of a federal court taking bold action against the Trump administration’s bigotry and lawlessness.”

The decision by the three judges was on a case brought by the state of Hawaii that was presided over by federal Judge Derrick Watson, a Hawaiian/American, and argued by the  state's Attorney General, Doug Chin.

The other appeal comes against an October ruling in Maryland's 4th District Court issued by Judge Theodore D. Chuang. In that case the ACLU's  arguments strongly depended on the apparent religious restriction based on Trump's comments during and after his 2016 campaign. 

Both cases are expected to land in the laps of the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

The Ninth's panel ruled that Trump's ban does not adequately explain why people from certain countries are a danger: "The Proclamation makes no finding that nationality alone renders entry of this broad class of individuals a heightened security risk or that current screening processes are inadequate."

The panel also appeared to be deeply disturbed by the claims that the government lawyers had made in defending the latest order that the executive order overrides any court's decision, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The Executive," the panel remarked, "cannot without assent of Congress supplant its statutory scheme [for immigration] with one stroke of a presidential pen."

_____________________________________________________________________________