A U.S.
federal judge in Virginia ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump's travel
ban was justified, increasing the likelihood the measure will go before the
Supreme Court as the decision took an opposing view to courts in Maryland and
Hawaii that have halted the order.
U.S.
District Court Judge Anthony Trenga rejected arguments by Muslim plaintiffs who
claimed Trump's March 6 executive order temporarily banning the entry of all
refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries was discriminatory.
The decision
went against two previous court rulings that put an emergency halt to the order
before it was set to take effect on March 16. The order remains halted.
Trump has
said he plans to appeal those unfavorable rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court if
needed, and differing opinions by lower courts give more grounds for the
highest court to take up the case.
Trenga, an
appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, said the complaint backed by
the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights group,
found that more than 20 individuals who brought the suit had been able to show
they were harmed by the travel ban since they might be unable to reunite with
their relatives.
But he also
ruled that Trump's revised order, which replaced a more sweeping version signed
on Jan. 27 and rejected by courts, fell within the president's authority to
make decisions about immigration.
He said that
since the order did not mention religion, the court could not look behind it at
Trump's statements about a "Muslim ban" to determine what was in the
"drafter's heart of hearts."
Trump has
said the ban is necessary to protect the country from terrorist attacks, but
his first order was halted by a federal judge in Seattle and a U.S. appeals
court in San Francisco due to concerns it violated the U.S. Constitution's
prohibition against religious bias.
The Justice
Department praised the Virginia decision saying in a statement, "As the
court correctly explains, the president's executive order falls well within his
authority to safeguard the nation's security." CAIR said it would appeal
the decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A ruling by
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii - an appointee of Democratic
President Barack Obama - put a stop to the two central sections of the revised
ban that blocked travelers from six countries and refugees, while leaving other
parts of the order in place.
U.S.
District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland, also an Obama appointee, only put a
halt to the section on travelers.
The Virginia
lawsuit sought to strike down the revised ban in its entirety.
Watson
scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to decide whether his temporary order
blocking the travel and refugee restrictions should be converted into a more formal
preliminary injunction. The Justice Department has said it would oppose that
bid.
The
government has appealed Chuang's decision in Maryland, also to the 4th circuit,
and a hearing in that case is scheduled for May 8. The Hawaii case was brought
by state attorneys' general opposed to the ban and the Maryland case was filed
by refugee advocacy groups.
Other
lawsuits against the ban continue to move forward around the country. Also on
Friday, the Southern Poverty Law Center and other groups filed a new complaint
in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. on behalf of Muslim community
organizations.
(Reuters)
No comments:
Post a Comment