It's official — a federal appeals court has ruled against reinstating President Donald Trump's travel ban on citizens of seven majority Muslim countries. A three-judge panel at the San Francisco-based court made a unanimous decision to uphold the temporary restraining order against Trump's executive order. And there are some key quotes from the Ninth Circuit decision to help you understand exactly what the court's decision means.
According to the court ruling, the federal government didn't actually provide too much evidence, which would seem to be one of the major reasons the ban was overturned. Trump has already pledged a rematch, tweeting, "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!" It's a bit of an unfortunate comeback, given that his team was literally just seen in court and defeated. But it's clear that the president hasn't given up on the immigration ban just yet.
Technically, the Ninth Circuit Court's decision only applies to Seattle's Judge James Robart's Feb. 3 decision. Trump's administration could still attempt to prevent a permanent repeal of the travel ban by filing a motion by Feb. 17. Still, the decision would ultimately be up to Robart at that point, though of course, as with any case that hasn't reached the nation's highest court, Trump's administration could appeal the decision.
SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017
Here are some of the key takeaways from the Ninth Circuit Court's decision:
The Travel Ban
Trump's executive order was challenged by two states, Washington and Minnesota. Washington pointed out that Trump had on many occasions stated his intentions to enact a ban on Muslims entering the United States. Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani also told Fox News that Trump asked him to figure out how to "legally" enact a Muslim ban.
Effects On Universities
Washington and Minnesota showed that students and faculty of public universities were negatively impacted by the travel ban. This caused problems for the universities, which the states argued was a problem for the states as a whole.
Basically, this case is important since so many people on both sides of the issue have been paying attention to it.
Unreviewable Presidential Actions
Clearly Trump's legal team did not suitably explain how Trump's decisions about immigration policy being unreviewable fits into the separation of powers, or the checks and balances system, under the United States constitution. The judges also pointed out that there's no precedent to support this idea of Trump's decisions being untouchable.
This sort of feels like the legal equivalent of a cold, hard burn. The judges called Trump's team out for not presenting evidence to support the travel ban, and they straight-up said they disagreed.
No Terrorist Attacks
There isn't any evidence that immigrants from the seven countries in question committed terrorist attacks on U.S. soil because they didn't. It's that simple.
Seeing as due process is one of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, it's a problem that Trump's executive order didn't provide for it. Especially since the Bill of Rights technically applies to all people in the United States, even non-citizens.
We'll have to see how Trump and his team decide to pursue reinstating the travel ban, but given the reasons outlined in the court's ruling, it seems like they'll have to come up with some better evidence the next time around.