News

Appeals court to hear Trump administration's bid to reinstate travel ban

The panel has no deadline to rule on the stay but is expected to act quickly following the hearing

A federal appeals court in San Francisco will hear arguments at 3 p.m. Tuesday on whether to reinstate a ban ordered by President Trump on admitting visitors and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries to the United States.

The U.S. Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, has asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay of a lower court order temporarily blocking the ban.

The Justice Department claims the temporary restraining order, handed down Friday by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, "improperly second-guessed the president's national security determinations."

Trump issued the travel ban in an executive order on Jan. 27, saying that its purpose was to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals.

The ban would bar visitors and refugees from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days, stop refugees from all countries for 120 days and exclude Syrian refugees indefinitely.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

Robart ruled in a lawsuit filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota, which claim the ban "unleashed chaos" and would harm the states' residents, universities and economies.

The Justice Department on Saturday asked the appeals court for an immediate stay of the temporary restraining order.

The court refused on the same day to grant an immediate stay, but set a rapid briefing schedule with final briefs by the states and the Justice Department due at 1 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday respectively.

Shortly after receiving the Justice Department's final brief Monday afternoon, a three-judge panel of the appeals court announced it would conduct a telephone hearing on the case on Tuesday.

The panel has no deadline to rule on the stay but is expected to act quickly following the hearing.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Its decision could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which currently has a 4-4 split of conservative and liberal justices.

If left in place by the higher courts, the temporary restraining order would remain in effect until Robart decides whether to issue a preliminary injunction against the ban.

Also Monday, 127 technology companies, including many from Silicon Valley, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the states.

The companies' brief argues that Trump's executive order "threatens companies' ability to attract talent, business, and investment to the United States."

Companies signing the brief include Adobe Systems, Airbnb, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Levi Strauss, Lyft, Microsoft, Twitter, Uber and Yelp.

The state of California joined 14 other states and the District of Columbia in a friend-of-the court brief supporting Washington and Minnesota in defending the temporary restraining order.

That brief, led by the state of New York, argued the travel ban would harm the states' universities, medical institutions and tax revenue.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement, "The brief I joined tells the appeals court that immigrants are the life-blood of our nation who work hard to build our country, especially in

California."

Another state, Hawaii, asked the court for permission to become an official party in the case on the side of Washington and Minnesota, but the court said Monday that Hawaii could file a friend-of-the-court brief instead.

Ten former diplomatic and security officials, including former secretaries of state John Kerry and Madeleine Albright, filed a declaration saying they believe Trump's executive order "ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer."

Opponents of the ban contend it denies the rights of due process and equal treatment to visa holders and non-citizen U.S. residents who come from or want to visit and return from the seven countries.

They also claim Trump's order discriminates against Muslims by targeting predominantly Muslim nations and giving future preference to refugees who are from religious minorities in their countries.

The Justice Department contends the ban is religion-neutral and within the president's authority to suspend the admission of any group of foreign visitors to protect the national interest.

"The executive order is a lawful exercise of the President's authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees," the federal lawyers wrote in Monday's filing.

The intent of the ban "is to permit an orderly review and revision of screening procedures to ensure that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks," the attorneys said.

---

Related content:

Stanford joins universities in challenging Trump's travel ban

County files suit over president's executive order

Stanford student sues over immigration ban

Palo Alto man helps Afghan interpreter receive visa

Stanford: Trump immigration ban 'deeply antithetical' to university values

Santa Clara County to file lawsuit against President Trump's order

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

— Bay City News Service

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Appeals court to hear Trump administration's bid to reinstate travel ban

The panel has no deadline to rule on the stay but is expected to act quickly following the hearing

Uploaded: Tue, Feb 7, 2017, 9:51 am

A federal appeals court in San Francisco will hear arguments at 3 p.m. Tuesday on whether to reinstate a ban ordered by President Trump on admitting visitors and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries to the United States.

The U.S. Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, has asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay of a lower court order temporarily blocking the ban.

The Justice Department claims the temporary restraining order, handed down Friday by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, "improperly second-guessed the president's national security determinations."

Trump issued the travel ban in an executive order on Jan. 27, saying that its purpose was to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals.

The ban would bar visitors and refugees from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days, stop refugees from all countries for 120 days and exclude Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Robart ruled in a lawsuit filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota, which claim the ban "unleashed chaos" and would harm the states' residents, universities and economies.

The Justice Department on Saturday asked the appeals court for an immediate stay of the temporary restraining order.

The court refused on the same day to grant an immediate stay, but set a rapid briefing schedule with final briefs by the states and the Justice Department due at 1 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday respectively.

Shortly after receiving the Justice Department's final brief Monday afternoon, a three-judge panel of the appeals court announced it would conduct a telephone hearing on the case on Tuesday.

The panel has no deadline to rule on the stay but is expected to act quickly following the hearing.

Its decision could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which currently has a 4-4 split of conservative and liberal justices.

If left in place by the higher courts, the temporary restraining order would remain in effect until Robart decides whether to issue a preliminary injunction against the ban.

Also Monday, 127 technology companies, including many from Silicon Valley, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the states.

The companies' brief argues that Trump's executive order "threatens companies' ability to attract talent, business, and investment to the United States."

Companies signing the brief include Adobe Systems, Airbnb, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Levi Strauss, Lyft, Microsoft, Twitter, Uber and Yelp.

The state of California joined 14 other states and the District of Columbia in a friend-of-the court brief supporting Washington and Minnesota in defending the temporary restraining order.

That brief, led by the state of New York, argued the travel ban would harm the states' universities, medical institutions and tax revenue.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement, "The brief I joined tells the appeals court that immigrants are the life-blood of our nation who work hard to build our country, especially in

California."

Another state, Hawaii, asked the court for permission to become an official party in the case on the side of Washington and Minnesota, but the court said Monday that Hawaii could file a friend-of-the-court brief instead.

Ten former diplomatic and security officials, including former secretaries of state John Kerry and Madeleine Albright, filed a declaration saying they believe Trump's executive order "ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer."

Opponents of the ban contend it denies the rights of due process and equal treatment to visa holders and non-citizen U.S. residents who come from or want to visit and return from the seven countries.

They also claim Trump's order discriminates against Muslims by targeting predominantly Muslim nations and giving future preference to refugees who are from religious minorities in their countries.

The Justice Department contends the ban is religion-neutral and within the president's authority to suspend the admission of any group of foreign visitors to protect the national interest.

"The executive order is a lawful exercise of the President's authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees," the federal lawyers wrote in Monday's filing.

The intent of the ban "is to permit an orderly review and revision of screening procedures to ensure that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks," the attorneys said.

---

Related content:

Stanford joins universities in challenging Trump's travel ban

County files suit over president's executive order

Stanford student sues over immigration ban

Palo Alto man helps Afghan interpreter receive visa

Stanford: Trump immigration ban 'deeply antithetical' to university values

Santa Clara County to file lawsuit against President Trump's order

— Bay City News Service

Comments

Longtime Resident
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Feb 7, 2017 at 10:37 am
Longtime Resident, Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Feb 7, 2017 at 10:37 am

The states filing this suit and companies mentioned in the brief are over-reacting.

"Robart ruled in a lawsuit filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota, which claim the ban 'unleashed chaos' and would harm the states' residents, universities and economies."

Really? Exactly how will 'unleashed chaos' result? If any state is so adversely affected by a *temporary action*, then their leaders dropped the ball in leading, long ago.

The companies, including those in Silicon Valley, are way too dependent as well, putting all their eggs into one basket, and have admitted to mismanagement, if they cannot handle even a temporary ban, and for the purpose of rethinking policies for national safety.

This list of countries has been known for years. It ought not to be a surprise to anyone, or thought to be new. It's old news.

Lastly, the article states that the intent of the ban "is to permit an orderly review and revision of screening procedures to ensure that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks," according to the White House attorneys. That sounds reasonable. It's common sense.


38 year resident
Old Palo Alto
on Feb 7, 2017 at 12:35 pm
38 year resident, Old Palo Alto
on Feb 7, 2017 at 12:35 pm

@ Longtime Resident......very well stated. Fear mongering is rampant in the world of progressive liberals.


resident
Charleston Meadows
on Feb 7, 2017 at 8:14 pm
resident, Charleston Meadows
on Feb 7, 2017 at 8:14 pm

I agree with the above. A 90-day ban has been done before for these specific countries so there should not be any chaos by company management. There job is to manage - not over react to previously and current bans on specific country locations. I am sure the FB, Google, et all can run their business for the minimal number of people affected by the ban. Google - pay your taxes - you are chaos.


Sanctimonious City
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 7, 2017 at 10:12 pm
Sanctimonious City, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 7, 2017 at 10:12 pm

Looks like Obama left us with a nice little covert war going on in Yemen he didn't tell anybody about. It doesn't get a lot of play in the mainstream media so it is no wonder most people don't know what is going on over there and why we need tighter restrictions on people traveling from an active war zone.

Saudi Arabia has been fighting Iranian backed rebels for a while. The USA has supported them and launched special ops raids and cruise missile attacks.

Recently, the rebels have blown up several ships in the area (one UAE and one Saudi) and fired missiles at the holy city of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. There was a time this would be prime time news but radio silence to make Trump look bad.

Web Link

Web Link


Resident
Midtown
on Feb 8, 2017 at 6:20 am
Resident, Midtown
on Feb 8, 2017 at 6:20 am

Google as well as Facebook need to stop acting like their God's gift to the world.
They are dangerously monolithic.
Their technology is just as regressive as it is "helpful".


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.