President Donald Trump’s travel ban targeting people coming from six Muslim-majority countries violates the U.S. Constitution by discriminating on the basis of religion, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday in another legal setback for the policy.
The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on a 9-4 vote, became the second federal appeals court to rule against the ban, finding which the Republican president’s own words demonstrated which bias against Muslims was the basis of the policy.
The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the ban, put in place by Trump having a presidential proclamation in September, to go into effect while litigation challenging which continues.
The 4th Circuit ruling went further than the earlier decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the ban violated federal immigration law yet did not address the question of whether which also violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court already has said which will consider both issues in deciding the legality of the ban inside the coming months.
The justices are due in April to hear arguments over the ban along with issue a ruling by the end of June.
“Examining official statements coming from President Trump along with different executive branch officials, along with the proclamation itself, we conclude which the proclamation is actually unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam,” 4th Circuit Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote inside the ruling.
The travel ban challengers “offer undisputed evidence of such bias: the words of the President,” Gregory wrote, noting Trump’s “disparaging comments along with tweets regarding Muslims.”
As a candidate, Trump promised “a total along with complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” The court also took note of the fact which Trump in November shared on Twitter anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right British political figure.
inside the main dissenting opinion, Judge Paul Niemeyer said the courts should be deferential to the president on matters of national security. Niemeyer criticized the majority, saying his colleagues applied “a novel legal rule which provides for the use of campaign-trail statements to recast later official acts of the president.”
Trump’s policy, the third design of the ban which he has issued since taking office in January 2017, blocks entry into the United States of most people coming from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, along with Yemen. Trump has said the policy is actually needed to protect the United States coming from terrorism by Islamic militants.
Thursday’s ruling upheld a Maryland-based district court judge’s decision in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents several advocacy groups including the International Refugee Assistance Project.
“President Trump’s third illegal attempt to denigrate along with discriminate against Muslims through an immigration ban has failed in court yet again. which’s no surprise,” ACLU lawyer Cecillia Wang said.