The 9th Circuit Court ruled against the travel ban in a decision that’s already begun to ruffle feathers in Washington.
The ruling, which was announced on Thursday, referenced a slew of past cases and rendered opinions on the merits of any possible appeal. The judges responsible for upholding the revocation of the travel ban cited several reasons why they stuck by an earlier decision. Considerations such as national security and the well-being of affected persons were used to defy the executive order, which banned citizens of seven Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States. Green card holders and permanent residents were prevented from returning home, as thousands of tourist visas were canceled in a separate move by the State Department.
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel is being touted as a major victory by liberals and some conservatives. Protests had broken out at international airports across the country when the executive order was signed and applied. Outrage was apparent from San Diego to New York City, with Americans of all colors and creeds taking to the streets in resistance. While nearly half the country supported Donald Trump’s policy of exclusion, many of its critics saw the order as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
The 29-page document outlining the latest conclusion in the case against the White House opines the possibility of the travel ban having infringed upon the first amendment. While the language of the paper signed by Trump in late January makes no specific mention of Muslims, the circuit judges felt past statements could be taken into consideration by any possible Supreme Court deliberation. Presuming that past comments about stopping the influx of Muslim refugees into America seems not to be the largest leap of logic. Any reasonable person, whether in law or lay, should see the linkage between the president’s fiery campaign-trail rhetoric and his revoked executive action.
However, the president has made it apparent that he will not yield to the judiciary. Mere hours after the ruling went public, the commander-in-chief took to the Internet to issue a challenge:
“See you in court.”
Writing in all caps and with an enthusiasm which could hardly be contained by cyberspace, Trump declared the 9th Circuit Court was placing the security of the nation at stake. He admitted in a later session with reporters that it is a “political decision” to escalate the matter in an appeal, confidently boasting that “we’ll win, in my opinion, very easily.”
Hillary Clinton made a brief foray into the drama, Tweeting “3-0” – a reference to the repeated failures of Trump in forcing his ideology onto the entirety of government.
The 9th Circuit Court also tut-tutted at the notion executive orders relating to national security cannot be reviewed or refuted by the judicial system. They implied that the “unreviewability” argument put forward by the politician plaintiffs “runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”
Trump’s travel ban against the sort of inclusion so vital to the American ethos – inclusion which has been challenged in the past, with different races often bearing the burden of being deemed undesirable.
Tuesday’s ruling reinforced that the United States is indeed a nation which extends its bounty to the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses – people who yearn to breathe free air but are stopped now by the wretched refuse of an antique attitude being codified in the modern day.
See you in court, Mr. President.