Trump Executive Order: US Fourth Circuit Upholds Travel Ban Injunction

RICHMOND, VA — The Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals largely upheld Thursday the injunction against President Trump's travel ban executive order, which many critics call a "Muslim ban," ruling that the administration's power to limit immigration is not absolute. After the ruling was announced, Attorney General Jeff Sessions pledged to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

"The President is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States," Sessions said in a statement. "The Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the power and duty of this country from danger, and will seek review of this case in the United States Supreme Court."

This latest ruling is only the most recent of defeats in the courts for the president's attempts to limit immigration. Trump's first attempt, an executive order barring all immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, sparked immediate outrage and was blocked by the courts. Thursday's ruling addressed the administration's second version of such a ban, which was more limited in scope and only excluded people from six countries.

"These clearly are very dangerous times and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence," said White House Assistant Press Secretary Michael C. Short in a statement in response to the ruling. "We are confident the President's executive order to protect the country is fully lawful and ultimately will be upheld by the Judiciary."

The Ninth Circuit is also considering evaluating the executive order. (For more information on this and other political stories, subscribe to the White House Patch for daily newsletters and breaking news alerts.)

The ACLU, which has been fighting the ban in court, declared victory on Twitter after the ruling was announced: "We won in 4th circuit Muslim ban case! More to come."

Trump's own words have been used against him in multiple rulings against the executive order. During the presidential campaign, Trump proposed temporarily banning all Muslim immigration to the United States, a move which many believed would violate freedom of religion protected under the First Amendment. Critics allege, and many courts have agreed, Trump's travel ban is merely a modified version of his original "Muslim ban" idea and this version still had the taint of unconstitutional intent.

The ruling cites these precise issues, noting that the intent of the order is not difficult to determine. "We need not probe anyone’s heart of hearts to discover the purpose of Eo-2, for President Trump and his aides have explained it on numerous occasions and in no uncertain terms.," it reads.

"There is a direct link between the President’s numerous campaigns statements promising a Muslim ban that targets territories," the ruling continues, "the discrete action he took only one week into office executing that exact plan, and [the second travel ban executive order], the ‘water down’ version of that plan that ‘gets just about everything’ and ‘in some ways, more.'”

In florid language, the ruling defends the primacy of protection against religious discrimination. It says the order "speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination."

"The government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another," Chief Circuit Judge Roger Gregory wrote. "Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across the nation."

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who has fought the ban, praised the ruling, saying in a statement, "Another federal appeals court has agreed with our arguments that President Trump's revised travel ban is unconstitutional. This is an important victory in the rule of law."

Supporters of the ban, including White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, have frequently appealed to the test of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. It 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 ... 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."

Spicer has argued that the text of the law decisively shows that the president's executive order is lawful; he has repeatedly used this part of the statute to question any basis for legally objecting to the ban. However, the Constitution supersedes all other American law, and the question before the judges in this matter was whether the order violates the First Amendment.

Trump himself has frequently expressed frustration with the judiciary's ability to block his orders. He referred to the author of one ruling against him as a "so-called judge." He also suggested the injunction could be responsible for attacks in the U.S.

"Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system," he wrote on Twitter. "People pouring in. Bad!"

He continued: "The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart. Bad people are very happy!"

Read the full ruling.

Like The White House Patch Facebook Page.

Follow us on Twitter.

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images