Navigation
Suscribe
Menu Search Facebook Twitter
Search Close
Menu ALL SECTIONS
  • Capital Coahuila
  • Capital Hidalgo
  • Capital Jalisco
  • Capital Morelos
  • Capital Oaxaca
  • Capital Puebla
  • Capital Quintana Roo
  • Capital Querétaro
  • Capital Veracruz
  • Capital México
  • Capital Michoacán
  • Capital Mujer
  • Reporte Índigo
  • Estadio Deportes
  • The News
  • Efekto
  • Diario DF
  • Capital Edo. de Méx.
  • Green TV
  • Revista Cambio
Radio Capital
Pirata FM
Capital Máxima
Capital FM
Digital
Prensa
Radio
TV
X
Newsletter
Facebook Twitter
X Welcome! Subscribe to our newsletter and receive news, data, statistical and exclusive promotions for subscribers
World

Appeals Court Deals Blow to Trump Administration Travel Ban

The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit is the first appeals court to rule on the revised travel ban

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Roger Gregory, gestures during an interview in his office in Richmond, Va., Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2016, photo: AP/Steve Helber
1 month ago

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court dealt another blow to President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban targeting six Muslim-majority countries on Thursday, siding with groups that say the policy illegally targets Muslims.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that blocks the Republican’s administration from temporarily suspending new visas for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit is the first appeals court to rule on the revised travel ban, which Trump’s administration had hoped would avoid the legal problems that the first version encountered.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg listens as President Donald Trump speaks during a ceremony to unveil artifacts from the World Trade Center and Berlin Wall for the new NATO headquarters, Thursday, May 25, 2017, in Brussels. Photo: AP/Evan Vucci

In all, ten of the thirteen judges who heard the case voted against the Trump administration.

Trump will likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A central question in the case was whether courts should consider Trump’s past statements about wanting to bar Muslims from entering the country as evidence that the policy was primarily motivated by the religion.

Trump’s administration argued that the court should not look beyond the text of the executive order, which doesn’t mention religion. The countries were not chosen because they are predominantly Muslim but because they present terrorism risks, the administration says.

The government’s “asserted national security interest … appears to be a post hoc, secondary justification for an executive action rooted in religious animus and intended to bar Muslims from this country,” wrote the chief judge of the circuit, Roger L. Gregory.

“Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute,” Gregory wrote. “It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation.”

The first travel ban in January triggered chaos and protests across the country as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours. Trump tweaked the order after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the ban.

The new version made it clear the 90-day ban covering those six countries doesn’t apply to those who already have valid visas. It got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities and removed Iraq from the list of banned countries.

Critics said the changes don’t erase the legal problems with the ban.

The Maryland case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) on behalf of organizations as well as people who live in the U.S. and fear the executive order will prevent them from being reunited with family members from the banned countries.

“President Trump’s Muslim ban violates the Constitution, as this decision strongly reaffirms,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case. “The Constitution’s prohibition on actions disfavoring or condemning any religion is a fundamental protection for all of us, and we can all be glad that the court today rejected the government’s request to set that principle aside.”

JESSICA GRESKO

Comments Whatsapp Twitter Facebook Share
More From The News
Sports

UK Charges 6 in Deadly Hillsborough Stad ...

18 mins ago
World

Venezuela: Helicopter Strafes Court in ' ...

25 mins ago
Business

Global Stocks Fall on Jitters over Centr ...

40 mins ago
World

As Firms Gauge Cost, Ukraine says Cybera ...

43 mins ago
Most Popular

You Can Now Try the First Sake Made in M ...

By Martha Pskowski
Living

What You're Doing This Weekend in Mexico ...

By The News
Living

Mexico City Fashion Week: Trends in Revi ...

By Caitlin Donohue
Living

Qatari Envoy Opens Embassy in Mexico

By Thérèse Margolis
Mexico

Senate Demands Investigation into Murder ...

By The News
Mexico