MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, February 6th 2023 - 23:05 UTC

 

 

Trump's travel ban on Muslims expected to reach the Supreme Court

Wednesday, February 8th 2017 - 11:02 UTC
Full article 2 comments
Judge Richard Clifton posed equally tough questions for an attorney representing Minnesota and Washington states, which are challenging the ban. Judge Richard Clifton posed equally tough questions for an attorney representing Minnesota and Washington states, which are challenging the ban.
Trump's Jan. 27 order barred travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days Trump's Jan. 27 order barred travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days

United States president Donald Trump's order temporarily banning U.S. entry to people from seven Muslim-majority countries came under intense scrutiny on Tuesday from a federal appeals court that questioned whether the ban unfairly targeted people over their religion.

 During a more than hour-long oral argument, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals pressed a government lawyer whether the Trump administration's national security argument was backed by evidence that people from the seven countries posed a danger.

Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee, posed equally tough questions for an attorney representing Minnesota and Washington states, which are challenging the ban. Clifton asked if a Seattle judge's suspension of Trump's policy was “overbroad.”

The 9th Circuit said at the end of the session it would issue a ruling as soon as possible. Earlier on Tuesday, the court said it would likely rule this week but would not issue a same-day ruling. The matter will ultimately likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump's Jan. 27 order barred travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days, except refugees from Syria, whom he would ban indefinitely.

Trump, who took office on Jan. 20, has defended the measure, the most divisive act of his young presidency, as necessary for national security.

The order sparked protests and chaos at U.S. and overseas airports. Opponents also assailed it as discriminatory against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution and applicable laws.

A federal judge in Seattle suspended the order last Friday and many travelers who had been waylaid by the ban quickly moved to travel to the United States while it was in limbo.

Categories: Politics, United States.

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • ElaineB

    Trump's lawyer didn't do too well. What is most concerning is Trump's assertion that the US can “never” have security unless he can potentially violate the constitution.

    And the truth is the U.S. can never be safe with all those guns in circulation. A U.S. citizen is statistically more likely to be killed by a toddler with a gun than a terrorist.

    Feb 08th, 2017 - 07:13 pm -1
  • chronic

    “Whenever” has no limitations:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

    Feb 10th, 2017 - 07:53 pm -1
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!