ADVERTISEMENT

Trump’s Travel Ban on Muslims and Refugees Causes Judicial Rift

Donald Trump’s travel ban against refugees and travellers from 6 Muslim countries has caused a judicial rift. 

Published
World
2 min read


District Court Judge Theodore Chuang said that the travel ban likely violates the Constitution by disfavouring Muslims. (Photo: AP)

US federal appeals judges appeared divided after hearing President Donald Trump's administration's defence of the revised travel ban on admitting refugees and travellers from six Muslim-majority countries, the media reported.

The nearly two-hour hearing on Monday before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, came about two months after a federal judge in Maryland imposed a nationwide halt to the core portion of the President's revised executive order, CNN reported.

He’s never repudiated what he said about the Muslim ban.
Judge Robert B King to CNN

This statement underscores a key rationale for the Maryland federal district court's halt to the ban.

But Judge Paul V Niemeyer questioned the plaintiffs' attorney about his motive for opposing the ban.

If some other candidate had won the election and issued this order, I gather you would have no problem with that. 
Judge Paul V Niemeyer to CNN

District Court Judge Theodore Chuang said that the travel ban likely violates the Constitution by disfavouring Muslims, and the Justice Department appealed that decision in March.

Jeffrey Wall, the acting solicitor general, however, argued that Trump's statements about Muslims prior to taking office should not be considered evidence of discrimination. "(Trump) made it clear he was not talking about Muslims all over the world, that's why it's not a Muslim ban," CNN quoted Wall as saying in the hearing.

ADVERTISEMENT

In response, Omar Jadwat, a senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project, argued the ban does not serve a valid national security purpose.

Normally, such an appeal of a district court's decision would be heard by a randomly assigned panel of three judges, and the losing party may ask for it to be reheard by the full court.

Yet in this case, the judges on the 4th Circuit decided it should be heard by the full court – otherwise known as "en banc" – in the first instance.

The suit in front of the 4th Circuit on Monday was brought by several refugee rights organisations, along with individual plaintiffs who claim the executive order, if allowed to go into effect, would separate them from loved ones abroad, CNN reported.

(This article has been published in arrangement with IANS)

(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Stay Updated

Subscribe To Our Daily Newsletter And Get News Delivered Straight To Your Inbox.

Join over 120,000 subscribers!
ADVERTISEMENT