Sponsored link
Monday, October 25, 2021

Sponsored link

News + PoliticsSF appeals court rules against revised 'Muslim ban'

SF appeals court rules against revised ‘Muslim ban’

The ruling blocks Trump's second, 'narrower' executive order that was issued in March.

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban.

The original ban, put in place via an executive order just a week after Trump took office, targeted six Muslim-majority countries and suspended the entry of refugees to the US. Sudden implementation of the original ban caused chaos and sparked protests at airports across the country, and a federal injunction was issued within a few hours.

The Monday ruling blocks Trump’s second “narrower” executive order that was issued in March and intended to address legal issues raised by the federal appeals court earlier. The narrower ban was stopped by a federal court in Hawaii before it was implemented; that injunction was upheld on Monday by the Court. 

This is the second time a federal appeals court has held up the ban. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, ruled in a separate case on May 25th. It found that the ban violated the first amendment, whereas the Ninth Circuit found that the prudent had overstepped his authority in issuing the ban. The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will hear the case. 

The court on Monday also found that the administration would have to follow a specific process if it intended to block access to refugees. The Ninth Circuit order noted that, “The Immigration and Nationality Act (‘INA’) gives the President broad powers to control the entry of aliens, and to take actions to protect the American public. But immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show.” 

The order also noted that: “We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress. In suspending the entry of more than 180 million nationals from six countries, suspending the entry of all refugees, and reducing the cap on the admission of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year, the President did not meet the essential precondition to exercising his delegated authority.” 

While the Trump administration has repeatedly cited prevention of terrorism as the main purpose of the ban, the court cited that Department of Homeland Security reports indicated that only a few people from the affected countries  — Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen —were involved in terrorism in the U.S. 

The Trump administration has stated that it intends to take the issue to the Supreme Court, and believes that the ban will be upheld despite multiple rulings from federal courts. 


Sana Saleem
Sana Saleem is a writer with a focus on social justice and human stories. She's member board of advisory for the Courage Foundation, Edward Snowden's legal defense fund.
Sponsored link


  1. The Third Circuit is the most conservative in the country and if they ruled against Trump the odds are high that the Supreme Court will also. the Supreme Court usually steps in when two or more of the Appeals Courts disagree on an issue, and if they all agree that Trump is an asshole that’s strong writing on the wall

Comments are closed.

Sponsored link

Top reads

Saving Soma—and laundromats

The Agenda: Another massive development (and the loss of a place to wash your clothes) shows why zoning rules are really important.

No, Walgreens isn’t closing stores because of massive shoplifting in SF

The Agenda: Protecting tenants from predatory ADUs, where will people tossed of our SIP hotels go, and the start of local redistricting.

Dance festival honors 5700 indigenous people once buried in Dolores Park

FLACC's outdoor Latinx and Indigenous performances in 'sii agua sí: Remembering the Waterways in Yelamu' activate the forgotten

More by this author

Garcia Zarate gets time served — but won’t go free

Judge sentences him to three years, which he has already served -- but now the feds want to try him again for the same gun crime

Firearms expert says Steinle killing fits pattern of an accident

Defense witness says there are 'all indicators for an accidental discharge'

Zarate looked confused, disoriented during police interrogation

Cops lied to homeless defendant -- but in the end, he insisted that he stumbled onto the gun by accident and it fired
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED