Ninth Circuit rules against Trump’s travel ban

    Read the full decision here

    The ninth circuit appeals court has unanimously ruled against Trump’s travel ban, denying the ban be reinstated.

    Trump’s administration had asked the court block lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S. 

    The temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle provided relief to families and travelers who were in a limbo ever since the executive order was signed. An appeal to the Supreme Court is possible.

    You can access the full ruling here   


    1. I don’t have any friends or family from the seven countries from which travel is banned . I’m from NY and I was only about 20 miles away when the World Trade Center crashed and burned. I do not feel safer with this clown randomly banning people from coming in the U.S. I feel less safe..

    2. Not at all, but I won’t tell you why. Let’s just say there are other plans if you read the news, also listen to what Dersh says.

    3. Apparently it matters to you otherwise you wouldn’t spend so much time trying to prove that I’m wrong.
      Why did trump withdraw his bid to appeal to the Supreme Court? Maybe his sister talked some sense into him. She is an appeals court judge on the Philadelphia circuit

    4. “probably” not at all. Esteemed attorney Alan Dershowitz said SCOTUS will take it. Your “opinion” doesn’t really matter.

    5. The Supreme Court probably already told trump they won’t take the case which is the reason he withdrew his bid for an immediate appeal. They don’t want to get involved in his crap

    6. They are looking at it like any other legal case – the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence or do adequate discovery. This doesn’t mean they cant revisit it later on . The chances are pretty good the Supreme court might say the same thing. The judges really don’t like to impugn the work of other judges particularly not in some rushed, fast food fashion.

    7. Anyone with any common sense is going to be a lot more worried about their next door neighbor than someone coming from one of the seven predominantly Muslim countries Trump tried to ban.Look at the worst acts of terrorism in the US, they were all committed either by home grown young men from the USA or people from Egypt or Saudi Arabia in the case of the 911 bombers. Remember the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building? That was done by American Timothy McVeigh. The Boston Marathon terrorist attack was committed by a young man from Chechnya named Dimitir Tsarnaev. Maybe he was sent by Mr. Trump’s new bestie Vladimir Putin. The South Carolina church shootings? Dylan Roof, another American. There has not been a single act of terror committed by a person from Iran in the United States. The Iranian population considers themselves to be very different in ethnicity and culture from the rest of the Arab nations, as they are Aryan by ethnicity, not Semitic, and the strict Islamic law that has been imposed by the Ayotollah does not reflect the true thinking of the civilian population.

      Over the last 100 years,most of the terrorist recruiting has come from Egypt, as the country with the highest population density. This is why the more sophisticated networks like Isis and Al Queda find young men in Egypt, its easier to disappear on the streets of Cairo than in most of the other Arab nations. The young man whose attempt to commit an act of terrorism in Paris this week was from Egypt. So if there is any country to ban people from why not Egypt?

      I can tell you I would feel much safer if anyone from any Muslim country could enter the US and Trump would get the hell out.

    8. With population growth in the West that makes some sense. They could carve out California with the Pacific as a separate area.

    9. You mean the same Kennedy who ruled that two men can get married and the same Roberts who upheld obamacare against republican opposition? The justices are not as predictable as people think .
      If I knew you better I would bet you a cup of Starbucks that it won’t go to Scotus right away

    10. And right now a SCOTUS test would likely result only in a 4-4 tie.

      While the Dems might not be able to prevent Gorauch’s nomination, they should be able to delay it for a good bit.

      I think ‘letting the process work’ may be the best strategy the Dems can pull, long-term. DJT is an impatient, childish neophyte; who will become apoplectic to discover that ‘govmint’ isn’t like ‘business’ at all.

    11. LOL, of course SCOTUS will take it. There are 4 conservative justices that will take it. Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito & Gorsuch is coming on board & will get in shortly. It is a done deal.

    12. The appeals court said the government had not justified suspending travel from the seven countries. “The government has pointed to no evidence,” the decision said, “that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.”

      It noted that the states challenging the executive order “have offered evidence of numerous statements by the president about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban.’” And it said, rejecting another administration argument, that it was free to consider evidence about the motivation behind laws that draw seemingly neutral distinctions.

    13. Wrong. They ruled that there is no reason the stay should be lifted. The didn’t rule on the underlying issue.

      “A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Seattle federal judge’s earlier restraining order on the new policy should remain in effect while the judge further examines its legality” — LA Times

    14. This is an interesting issue. A real education. It seems the judges are making a moral decision not based on what the law says. That is like interpreting a law based on the motives of the lawmakers, not what the law actually says. It seems that based on statements by candidate Trump and Giuliani the judges determined this was a Muslim ban in disguise. They are judging the legality based on their assessment of motives not the actual law. If the motives were bad then the actions are illegal but if the motives were good then it is legal? Somehow, I don’t think these judges will get daily briefings by national security staff to really know the motives. But maybe they could hear top secret evidence if they agreed not to record the hearing. Maybe that would convince them the motives were pure.

    15. SCOTUS might not even take the appeal. Why submit themselves to a burning political football? If you read what the Ninth circuit said this case is like any other and it needs to go through the extensive discovery process before it is even a candidate for an appeal.
      The courts are supposed to be as apolitical as possible. The Supreme Court requires four justices to agree to take a case. There is probably at least a 50 percent chance they won’t take the case

    16. The entire judicial system is made up of educated technocrats of the sort that is reviled by Trump supporters and Trump himself. And in the end, they will all have to submit to the Supreme Court. And let me tell you about the Supreme Court for the next 30 years… This is the most fleeting of tactical victories.

    17. Ya know, it just seems to me that the Left is fighting the wrong battles. Muslims (<1%). transgender bathrooms (<1%), and Abortion (instead of insisting that ALL children receive support and protection).

      If it weren't for these issues – and guns – then the Right would have little in the way of popular issues to run on. In fact, they might make common ground with the Left on issues of economics for the working classes; which is where T-bone got his margerine-of-victory (PA, WI, MI).

      'Party of NO' didn't really work all that great for the Rs. Don't know why the Dems seem to be doubling down on that strategy.

    18. Why, thank you! We’ll enjoy our Constitution and separate but equal branches of government while we’re at it.

    Comments are closed.