Travel Ban Faces Scrutiny From Judges Who Blocked It Before - NBC4 Washington
President Donald Trump

President Donald Trump

The latest news on President Donald Trump's first year as president

Travel Ban Faces Scrutiny From Judges Who Blocked It Before

The latest version of the ban, announced in September, targets about 150 million potential travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, though it allows for some admissions on a case-by-case basis

    processing...

    NEWSLETTERS

    The Supreme Court has ruled the latest version of President Trump's travel ban can go into effect while challenges are heard in lower court (Published Monday, Dec. 4, 2017)

    Three federal appeals court judges who blocked President Donald Trump's second travel ban earlier this year had some skeptical questions about his third and latest set of restrictions on travelers from six mostly Muslim nations during oral arguments on Wednesday.

    Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and Michael Hawkins heard arguments in Seattle on Hawaii's challenge to the ban.

    The hearing came just two days after the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it was allowing the restrictions to go into effect at least until the 9th Circuit panel and their colleagues on the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit had a chance to rule on separate lawsuits against the ban.

    Debate over the restrictions has centered on whether they constitute a legitimate exercise of national security powers or the "Muslim ban" Trump promised during his campaign.

    Trump Travel Ban Takes Effect Thursday

    [NATL] Trump Travel Ban Takes Effect Thursday

    President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, a tightening of already-tough visa rules affecting citizens and refugees from six Muslim-majority countries, will go into effect Thursday evening. The ACLU is criticizing the Trump administration for pushing on with the ban, citing the chaos that erupted in airports nationwide the first time the ban went into effect. 

    (Published Thursday, June 29, 2017)

    But much of Wednesday's arguments focused on a narrower point: whether the president satisfied immigration law in issuing his latest travel order, which targets 150 million potential travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

    In June, Gould, Paez and Hawkins blocked Trump's second travel ban, saying he had not made a required finding that the entry of people affected by that measure would be detrimental to U.S. interests.

    Neal Katyal, the former U.S. solicitor general representing Hawaii, insisted that Trump had failed again and did not have authority to issue his latest travel restrictions.

    "They have not made the findings this court called for," Katyal said. "They came back with zero."

    Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hashim Mooppan noted that the government had conducted a 90-day, multi-agency review, after which Trump determined that certain countries do not provide enough information to sufficiently vet their citizens' backgrounds.

    The ban is needed to keep out "foreign nationals about whom the United States Government lacks sufficient information to assess the risks they pose to the United States," the president said in his September proclamation announcing the latest travel restrictions.

    White House Denies Sexual Misconduct Claims Against Trump

    [NATL] White House Denies Sexual Misconduct Claims Against Trump

    Three women who have accused President Donald Trump of sexual misconduct came together on Dec. 11 to share their stories. The White House denied the accusers’ claims.

    (Published 3 hours ago)

    "You might disagree with the finding, but you can't disagree that the finding was made," Mooppan said.

    Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said after the hearing that determining there's insufficient information to vet the foreigners is not the same as concluding their admission to the U.S. would be detrimental.

    The government, he said, "didn't tell us why the existing system isn't working."

    Citing national security concerns, Trump announced his initial travel ban on citizens of certain Muslim-majority nations in late January, bringing havoc and protests to airports around the country. A federal judge in Seattle soon blocked it, and courts since then have wrestled with the restrictions as the administration has rewritten them.

    The latest version blocks travelers from the listed countries to varying degrees, allowing for students from some of the countries while blocking other business travelers and tourists, and allowing for admissions on a case-by-case basis. It also blocks travel by North Koreans along with some Venezuelan government officials and their families, although those parts of the restrictions are not at issue in the courts.

    Mooppan argued that courts do not have the authority to consider claims that the president's actions violate federal immigration law, though he said it's conceivable courts could consider claims that the actions violate the constitution.

    Trump Accuser: 'We Are Not Holding Our President Accountable'

    [NATL] Trump Accuser: 'We Are Not Holding Our President Accountable'

    Jessica Leeds discusses the fallout of her accusation of sexual misconduct by President Donald Trump.

    (Published 6 hours ago)

    That assertion drew skeptical questioning from the judges, including a hypothetical from Gould: What if the president decided to bar anyone who's not a U.S. citizen?

    Mooppan said even such a drastic action could not be reviewed by the courts unless Congress authorized them to do so.

    Paez questioned the legitimacy of the administration's rationale for the restrictions, noting the exceptions for student visas: If those governments don't provide sufficient information, why allow anyone in?

    Mooppan said the restrictions are carefully tailored to for each country, and designed in part to encourage them to be more forthcoming with the U.S. The exceptions also demonstrate the government is not engaged in banning Muslims, he said.

    There was some discussion of the president's public statements concerning Muslims. Katyal noted that Trump continues to stoke anti-Islam sentiments. Last week he drew a sharp condemnation from British Prime Minister Theresa May's office when he retweeted a string of inflammatory videos from a fringe British political group purporting to show violence committed by Muslims.

    Gould said the panel would rule "as soon as practical," noting the Supreme Court had suggested in its order this week that the appeals courts rule with appropriate urgency. Arguments are due to be held Friday before a full complement of 13 4th Circuit judges.