Trump Will Appeal Travel Ban To Supreme Court

Tyler Durden's picture

Well, Trump did warn he would appeal the travel ban all the way to the Supreme Court if he had to, and that's precisely what he plans on doing.

On Thursday afternoon, shortly after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 10-3 vote that Trump's travel ban likely violates the constitution and ruled against the executive order, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department will ask the Supreme Court to review the appeals court ruling. The 4th Circuit (based in Richmond, Va) is the first appeals court to rule on the revised travel ban unveiled in March. A second appeals court, the 9th U.S. Circuit based in San Francisco, is also weighing the revised travel ban after a federal judge in Hawaii blocked it.

The first travel ban issued Jan. 27 was aimed at seven countries and 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. Following the revision, Trump's administration had hoped it would avoid the legal problems that the first version from January encountered, but it was not meant to be.

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. But critics said the changes don't erase the legal problems with the ban.

As described previously, a core question in the case before the 4th Circuit was whether courts should consider Trump's public 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 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 said.

But Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory wrote that 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."

President Donald Trump's revised travel ban "speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination," the appeals court also said Thursday in ruling against the executive order.

To this, Jeff Sessions responded that the court's ruling blocks Trump's "efforts to strengthen this country's national security" adding that Trump is not required to admit people from "countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism until he determines that they can be properly vetted" and don't pose a security threat.

The three dissenting judges, all appointed by Republican presidents, said the majority was wrong to look beyond the text of the order. Calling the executive order a "modest action," Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote that Supreme Court precedent required the court to consider the order "on its face." Looked at that way, the executive order "is entirely without constitutional fault," he wrote.

As for SCOTUS, according to AP, the Supreme Court would likely step into the case if asked as the justices almost always have the final say when a lower court strikes down a federal law or presidential action. Trump could try to persuade the Supreme Court to allow the policy to take effect, even while the justices weigh whether to hear the case, by arguing that the court orders blocking the ban make the country less safe. If the administration does ask the court to step in, the justices' first vote could signal the court's ultimate decision.

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, said if the Supreme Court follows a partisan divide, the Trump administration may fare better since five of the nine are Republican nominees. Still, he said, it's difficult to make a confident prediction because "Supreme Court justices don't always vote in ideological lockstep."

Critics of Trump's order were delighted with the outcome:

The case ruled on by the 4th Circuit was originally brought in Maryland by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center 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."

And now it will be up to the Supreme Court to rule once again on this issue, hopefully finally making it go away. Travel ban aside, the upcoming case will be a litmus test of just what (and how strong) the ideological leanings of the revised SCOTUS bench are, now that Gorsuch is in town.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
nmewn's picture

And he will win.

Creepy_Azz_Crackaah's picture

Since most courts make up laws as they go, Supreme Court, please make up a law (in the Constitution, of course) that says that YOUR FIRED if you get over 50% of your rulings overturned.  And you can NEVER be a judge again.  Disbarred, even, because you flagrantly ignore and twist the law so you are not a lawyer.

meditate_vigorously's picture

The Supreme Court has no such power. Only the legislative branch has that power. And they don't need a special rule, because the constitution already gives the legislature the power to remove judges in any manner they decide.

Only the Supreme Court must be removed by impeachment only. Lower courts serve at the pleasure of the congress.

Creepy_Azz_Crackaah's picture

Sorry, meditate_vigorously:


I hope that clears things up.



Manthong's picture

Screw the courts.

Immigration is beyond their purview. The courts have benefitted from authority that weak administrations have allowed them to have.

Clinton ignored the courts when he and Reno decided to send Elian Gonzalez back to Castro.

Trump should ignore them in this issue today.

Oliver Klozoff's picture

Not a chance. gorsuch or roberts will traitor.

nmewn's picture

The executive controls passports & visas, its pretty well established. 

Oliver Klozoff's picture

See my next comment below.

mofreedom's picture

But how many shall die while waiting,,,thinketh Soros.

meditate_vigorously's picture

When the courts are behaving outside the law, the correct response is not to appeal to the courts. The correct response is to crush the courts.

The constitution makes them the weakest branch. The constitutional criteria for dismissing judges is for someone in the congress to dismiss them. No law, no impeachment, no unanimous vote, nothing but a motion and a letter of dismissal.

The constitution says judges may serve so long as they maintain good behavior. That is it. If you read the article establishing the judicial branch, it looks like a rough draft.

nmewn's picture

None of the indoctrinated are going to believe it...but its true. The courts are an inferior entity, constitutionally speaking.

It says so right in Article III Section 1 ;-)

giggs's picture

You have hand it to the orange fella, he doesn't really know when to stay down.  If you keep doubling down on your losses any win makes you look like a genius.

TheFederalistPapers's picture

Elections have consequences. Bitches.

Peacefulwarrior's picture

When was this ever a "BAN" It is an advanced vetting process for prospective extremist Jihadist entering the United States, so that my kids and I don't get blown up at a Foofighters concert...

847328_3527's picture

With dead bodies of little children lying in various morgues throughout Manchester and the coroners still trying to pull all the nail and pieces of glass from their small cold faces and arms and legs, the result of muslim terrorist bombing … these judges have quite the nerve to block Trump’s desire to protect American little children from a similar fate from Islamic terrorists.

I read there are still over 20 chidlren in critical condition in various Intensive Care Units in the Manchester area and many more injured who have been treated.



MuffDiver69's picture

Yes. 90 day pause to figure out a procedure for countries that support terrorism and some don't even have a god damn embassy

MuffDiver69's picture

It's a 90 day pause..

MRothbard's picture

I predict a massive terrorist attack by a refugee from one of those countries before the Supreme Court decision.

Oliver Klozoff's picture

So what? scotus is above all us little shits. They'll uphold the ban AND roberts will preside over Trump's impeachment.

Grovel little clowns, life spits in your tears.

Oliver Klozoff's picture

It may be obvious I've had a bad day but it sure has opened my eyes.

Trump is the only actor playing fair, nothing, nothing will change without the bloodiest blows. He has to strike back, hard.

soulcalibur's picture

Hopefully all the judges that voted against it get removed!

dexter_morgan's picture

So what's the deal here? If this goes SCOTUS and they uphold the ban, aren't these judges potential for advancement severely limited? How could they ever get confirmed to higher court?

artichoke's picture

There's only one higher court and it would take a liberal president to elevate them.  That president might like their decision.

But it was a stupid decision, plain stupid, because a week ago (before they released their decision) Trump convincingly showed they're full of it, with his historic meeting of the leaders of almost all the world's Muslim countries.  For the judges to ignore this fact, to publish the ruling anyway rather than withdrawing and reconsidering, is simply terrible.

And eminently reversible at that higher court they wish they could get to.

Yog Soggoth's picture

Upvoted. These clowns have been causing trouble for a while now and if Hillary was elected they would be the supreme ninth circle of Hell on Earth. 

Zullo: "They Used the Wrong Statute" to Charge Arpaio - The ...


Dode415's picture

Why does he still need the travel ban - it was supposed to be for three months to allow extreme vetting to be implemented and it's now been four months

Yog Soggoth's picture

 That is an easy one. It is about currency and central banks ... and politics. Nothing Trump has done in this EX order was unconstitutional. There are (many)certain countries around the world that are going to do varying things with the way they transact with other countries. There really are a bunch of bad guys running around the ME, but unfortunately some are abroad. This EX order was designed to stop illegally gained money transported by those who also happen to be the terrorists, thus helping out the country who would be robbed, making the world safer, and protecting the value of a newly emerging market from contamination. The Ninth is part of a group of people who are resisting change for greed. Depending on the country, central banks are run differently but still communicate in a likewise fashion. Having a bad currency is out of style nowadays.

foodstampbarry's picture

Fucking God damn libtards. I Can't wait till the supreme court shoves this down their scrawny necks. Fuk you Obama the clown is history! We run shit now!

artichoke's picture

The court ignored the fact that about a week ago, President Trump had a historic meeting in Saudi Arabia with the leaders of almost all the world's Muslim countries, forming a coalition to stamp out terror.

These stupid, dangerously corrupt judges ignore that and pick up on a few campaign statements and comments by surrogates..

davidhenry's picture

Two Muslims entering the USA. One from Syria, one from Saudi Arabia. The Muslim from Saudi Arabia gets in, the one from Syria does not. How is this a Muslim ban?

Change the hypothetical to 1,000 Muslims from Saudi Arabia and 1 from Syria and calling it a Muslim ban makes even less sense.

Oliver Klozoff's picture

It should damn well be a muzzie ban. When are people gonna realize that islam IS the enemy?

Wake the fuck up.

mofreedom's picture

I hate the religion of canned peas.  Frozen, ok, fresh better, off the vine great,,,fruit of the vine work of human hands.

zimboe's picture

"Peas be upon him!"

(Cue falling institutional-sized can of green peas, 10 pounds net wt.)

indio007's picture

Trump will win this.

There is a legal doctrine that basically says, officers of whatever (gov't,corporations etc) do what they are suppose to do. If they are suppose to make Constituional orders, the are presumed Constitutional until there is EVIDENCE they aren't.

It's called something like the Good Faith presumptin or something.


This is black letter law and it's why you can't prevail in a suit against the government for simply passing a law you might think is wrong.

You need evidence it was actually applied in a way that violated a legal right.


It's not really a close call and this issue pretty much proves that judges are injecting their personl views into issues.

Oliver Klozoff's picture

I wish it were so. Only you haven't seem to have been paying attention.

Upholding the Law means absolutely nothing in these times.

Crushing Trump will once and for all crush any of the hope and spirit of the deplorables who elected him.

Couldn't be clearer.

Joe_in_Indiana's picture

And that is how 0bamacare got passed and survive Supreme Court review.

Yog Soggoth's picture

Hmmmn, sounds vague, try this, Section 4, Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution


Tunga's picture

Here is how the term "unreviewable" appears in the EO from the 25th;

Section 11.

(c) Pursuant to section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I) of the INA, the Secretary shall take appropriate action to apply, in his sole and unreviewable discretion, the provisions of section 235(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the INA to the aliens designated under section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II).
? ?

Tunga's picture

Such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Attorney General and may be modified at any time." - See more at;

Tunga's picture

"There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that, even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction over enemy combatants, because the “political branches” lack “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”). "

Ross123's picture

Maybe the Judge in question should take note of the fact that the low life who killed the children and some parents in Manchester earlier in the week had recently returned from Libya ---one of the countries on President Trump's list , I believe.

If the UK had had extra vigilant checking procedures in place for few of these counties the tragedy may have been averted as the guy involved " was known to authorities".

Tunga's picture

There is no evidence anyone died in the Manchester attack.

InternetToughGuy's picture

These liberal judges are just making up law.

A non-citizen does not have a right to enter the country, so it is nonsense to say that a person was denied entry in violation of his religious freedom or race, etc... Congress has a plenary power to regulate immigration. Trump's executive orders are based on laws passed by congress. This is a no-brainer, but Trump was wise to avoid the supreme court until the ratio of communist retards was diminished by the appointment of Gorsuch.

barysenter's picture

They took the bait. Mwahahaha
Explain these asymmetric, racist immigration, hiring, academic, taxing, billing and lending quotas, 9th circuit traitors.

Wide-Eyed and Innocent's picture

The one thing you all have taught me is that the rules of economics mean nothing.  The market goes up or down based on what the powers that be want it to do.  Why do you think this will be any different?  If the Supremes also rule against Trump, then what?  I mean, all the things you are saying as reasons the Supremes have to find in Trump's favor have always been true and yet, here we are. The Republicans in Congress have done nothing.  What makes you think they will do something now?  The man on the street complains, but we have done nothing, either.  I hate to be the downer here, but why will this time be different?  Go ahead; give me some hope.


Grandad Grumps's picture

Do I believe that global travel is an inalienable right of humanity? Yes, I do.

Do I believe thatgovernments should be powerful enough to believe that they have the authority to decide who gets to travel where? No I don't, but they do it every day.

Joe_in_Indiana's picture

This cartoon by Ramirez sums up how I feel-->>

lawton2's picture

Will Kennedy follow the law or not?

wolf pup's picture

Watch SCOTUS surprise Americans who still believe SCOTUS to be fair and impartial.
IMHO not happening.
WAY too much riding on it at this point.
At this point in very recent history, do you truly think SCOTUS will stand for US Constitutional law, against all judges prior on this? Against the western world governments? They won't. Not imho.
SCOTUS is decrepit, liberal by far, and will be glad to agree w/every judge so far and end it. SCOTUS disdains to loathes this Administration just like the rest. All three branches of what was once we, the people's federal government are broken via the same networked, technocratic gov+Corp owners club which has been behind the planetary-wide Stop Trump campaign. Trump has caused them a lot of trouble they'd not expected. They'll see this globalisation through come hell or high water and SCOTUS will not deviate.
IMHO? Watch.
"The children would go berserk if we uphold US law now. We simply mustn't. The older Americans who care anymore won't do anything, anyway. This is what Intel and Congress has advised us to do". - SCOTUS, or most of it.
Just be ready for a big letdown if you think it's a no brainier as the US Constitution is, in courtrooms today, a relic.
Look at the rulings in just this issue alone.

Our constitution must be laid aside for true globalism to succeed. And it has been/is being laid aside. We've seen the DC criminals getting away with murder for years. We watch today as "Obama Admin surveillance - biggest crime of the century!!" is blared - to a mute response from Congress and all else. We watch crime after crime played out across our tv screens and who has been charged? More to the point, who benefits?

Our courts; owned. Our federal gov? Not at all a constitutional construct any longer, no matter how much droning noise Gowdy squawks at and then walks away from.

Jmo. The only way this'll be sorted is organisation and massive retaking of federal gov as our Declaration of Independence cites as the just response in this case.

".. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their Security.”

Can't vouch for this site but recently came across it:
I've only had time to glance at it so you're on your own, but I thought I'd share.
And this calling for a convention of states:

... :-/

zimboe's picture

So let me see if I have this straight-

The frickin' POTUS gives an EO, which has force of law.

Then, out in Commieland, the Right Honorable Justice Merkin Mousefartz rears back and says, "No, I'm in charge here. I veto the POTUS"s decision."


At just what point did the Judiciary acquire veto power over the Executive?


Throw this guy off the roof of his own courthouse, sez I.

If it's just a single story, throw him off ten or twelve times.