The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday said it would delay making any announcement on a decision regarding President Trump’s temporary ban on immigration into the U.S. from seven countries known to support terrorism at least until Thursday.
The decision is significant, since an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible no matter the outcome. Because of the 4-4 ideological division at the highest court, the California court’s decision could be left untouched.
But Trump isn’t waiting to speak out; he’s taking the arguments to the court of public opinion.
On Wednesday he took to social media to declare: “If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled. Politics!”
The Washington Times’ report on the tweet immediately triggered an online assault on Trump from readers, with one asserting the president’s “action does not represent the U.S., it contradicts the very principles which govern the country.”
But the White House order names seven countries previously cited by President Obama and imposed only a temporary ban, as many other presidents have done, while procedures are developed to stop terrorists from infiltrating.
The law under which Trump issued his order states: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Trump noted the purpose is to “ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.”
Bloomberg reported Tuesday the statutory law gives the president plain authority to protect the nation.
The 9th Circuit is ruling on the suspension of Trump’s order by a federal judge in Washington state, James Robart, who incorrectly claimed that no one from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya or Somalia had been arrested in the United States since 9/11.
However, travelers and immigrants from the seven countries indeed have been murdered Americans and carried out other heinous crimes
The 9th Circuit is deciding whether to maintain the suspension while a trial ensues. One of the key issues is standing. The states of Minnesota and Washington, which brought the case, would have to prove that they directly and immediately are harmed by the executive order.
The court’s panel, judges Richard R. Clifton, William Canby and Michelle T. Friedland, who are in Honolulu, Phoenix and San Jose, California, heard arguments late Tuesday in a telephone conference call. They did not announce a deadline for issuing a decision.
The states claim the order unleashed “chaos,” but the Trump administration has argued that the president’s authority to make such decisions regarding national security is clear and the states have no right to second-guess the president.
Trump has warned that if a terrorist that is allowed into the United States carries out an attack, the courts and Robart must bear the blame.
In a speech Wednesday to law enforcement interests, Trump pointed out he issued the order “for the security of our nation, the security of our citizens, so that people come in who aren’t going to do us harm.”
He said he listened to the arguments to the 9th Circuit panel on Tuesday, and “it was disgraceful.”
Trump added, BBC reported, “Courts seem to be so political and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right.”
He praised another federal judge who had ruled, in a separate case, in favor of the president’s authority to impose a ban and suggested the action is a weapon against terror.
“We have to give you the weapons that you need,” he told police chiefs and others, “and this is a weapon that you need and they’re trying to take it away from you, maybe cause of politics.”
But a lawyer for the American Immigration Lawyers Association claimed only a few days ago the president was favoring “one religion over another,” even though Trump’s order isn’t based on religion.
The group’s William Stock admitted, “What we have here is a situation where it’s very clear the president has been given authority when the standard (of) the national interest would be adversely affected.”
Also, the judge who blocked the ban promoted Black LIves Matter’s radical message from the bench in a hearing last August.
And the report said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah also noted Robart had worked with “refugees” during his career.
The judge earlier boasted that he believed “the legal system was set up for” and could be used for the benefit of people who thought it was “stacked against them.”
On Wednesday, David Madden, an official with the 9th Circuit, said, “The court will not be issuing a decision today. Also, the court will provide advance notice of 60 to 90 minutes when a decision is imminent.”