logo
  • Nonprofit News
  • Management
    • Boards and Governance
    • Communication
      • Framing & Narratives
    • Ethics
    • Financial Management
    • Grassroots Fundraising Journal
    • Leadership
    • Technology
  • Philanthropy
    • Corporate Social Responsibility
    • Donor-Advised Funds
    • Foundations
    • Impact Investing
    • Research
    • Workplace Giving
  • Policy
    • Education
    • Healthcare
    • Housing
    • Government
    • Taxes
  • Economic Justice
    • About
    • Economy Remix
    • Economy Webinars
    • Community Benefits
    • Economic Democracy
    • Environmental Justice
    • Fair Finance
    • Housing Rights
    • Land Justice
    • Poor People’s Rights
    • Tax Fairness
  • Racial Equity
  • Social Movements
    • Community Development
    • Community Organizing
    • Culture Change
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Gender Equality
    • Immigrant Rights
    • Indigenous Rights
    • Labor
    • LGBTQ+
    • Racial Justice
    • Youth Activism
  • About Us
  • Log in
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Featured Articles
  • Webinars
    • Free Webinars
    • Premium On-Demand Webinars
  • Tiny Spark Podcast
  • Magazine
    • Magazine
    • Leading Edge Membership
Donate
Appellate Courts, Judges

Appeals Court Declines to Reinstate Trump “Travel Ban” Order

Ruth McCambridge
February 10, 2017
Share4
Share1
Email
Tweet
“No Muslim Ban march on the Capitol in Washington D.C. February 4, 2017” by Masha George. [Public domain]

February 9, 2017; Politico and Bloomberg

Courts have a duty “in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty.” That is why we always need to include litigation in our strategies to achieve social justice.

Late yesterday afternoon, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that President Trump’s travel ban should not be immediately reinstated while a court challenge is being heard.

The ruling acknowledged competing interests: “On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.”

But in the end, “The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel.” Ruled the court, “Indeed, the Government does not contend that the Executive Order provides for such process.”

It also took the administration to task for its now too-familiar disdainful attitude toward the judiciary as evidenced in the case. “Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the executive order,” reads one section of the ruling, “the government has taken the position that we must not review the decision at all.” Naturally, the court disagrees. “There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our democracy.”

The court found further that the states of Washington and Minnesota, which together instituted the original suit, had a supportable case in that the federal government “has not demonstrated that the States lack viable claims based on the due process rights of persons who will suffer injuries to protected interests due to the Executive Order.”

The next step for the government may be to take the issue of the stay to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, the executive order remains suspended while the underlying case that sparked the request for the immediate stay remains to be litigated in federal district court. Alternatively, the Justice Department could choose to ask the Ninth Circuit to hear the case “en banc,” with ten judges (including the three that issued yesterday’s ruling) reviewing the case for the immediate stay of the federal district court’s order.

The three judges on the panel took collective responsibility for the ruling: Carter appointee William Canby Jr., George W. Bush appointee Richard Clifton and Obama appointee Jennifer Freidland. This perhaps prevented the usual personalization of beefs on Twitter as Trump quickly responded, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

The president repeatedly warned the judges on the panel that they would be blamed if the U.S. suffered a terrorist attack from migrants while the order remained lifted. He not only called the Ninth Circuit arguments on the issue “disgraceful” but suggested political bias was at the base of any judicial resistance to his order.

The Ninth Circuit ruling largely avoided the most explosive issue in the case—whether Trump’s order was unconstitutionally tainted by anti-Muslim bias. The decision says it is “well established” that when considering the legality of government actions, courts can consider public comments such as Trump’s public call for a ban on immigration by Muslims. However, the ruling says that the appeals judges decided to reserve judgment on that issue, in part because of “the sensitive interests involved.”

White House press secretary Sean Spicer tried to spin the loss by asserting that the court only considered a “narrow” procedural issue (whether to issue an immediate stay of the district court’s decision to suspend enforcement of the executive order) and that the fight was not done.

Indeed, 20 other legal challenges to the order are now pending across the country, and the ACLU, which has been involved in a number of these suits, vows to continue fighting the “Muslim ban” every step of the way.

“The government’s erratic and chaotic attempts to enforce this unconstitutional ban have taken a tremendous toll on innocent individuals, our country’s values, and our standing in the world,” says Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.—Ruth McCambridge

Share4
Share1
Email
Tweet

About The Author
Ruth McCambridge

Ruth is the founder and Editor Emerita of the Nonprofit Quarterly. Her background includes forty-five years of experience in nonprofits, primarily in organizations that mix grassroots community work with policy change. Beginning in the mid-1980s, Ruth spent a decade at the Boston Foundation, developing and implementing capacity building programs and advocating for grantmaking attention to constituent involvement.

Related
Free Speech and Incitement: The Law, Its Limits, and Us
By Carole Levine
January 14, 2021
Media Wake Up and Condemn Baseless Voter Fraud Allegations
By Ruth McCambridge
November 6, 2020
Bracing for the Legal Battles to Come
By Carole Levine
November 4, 2020
Coalition of Rural Leaders Say, “No Trump Superspreading Here, Please”
By Ruth McCambridge
October 19, 2020
A “Blessing from God?” COVID Lays Bare Health System Disparities
By Chris Cannito
October 12, 2020
In Historic Move, New England Journal of Medicine Condemns Trump
By Ruth McCambridge
October 9, 2020

Upcoming Webinars

Group Created with Sketch.
January 21, 2 pm ET

Remaking the Economy

Health, Racial Disparities, and Economic Justice

other posts by The Author
Ruth was here, but now she’s gone…
By Ruth McCambridge
December 31, 2020
What’s in the Relief Bill Congress May Pass Today
By Ruth McCambridge
December 17, 2020
The PPP Loans of Private Foundations
By Ruth McCambridge
December 17, 2020
CYNDI SUAREZ
The Nonprofit Racial Leadership Gap: Flipping the Lens
Powerful Interests Seek to Make Puerto Rico the Hong Kong of the...
Moving Beyond the Privilege of White Tears
logo
Donate
  • About
  • Contact
  • Newsletters
  • Write for NPQ
  • Advertise