DoJ urges court to reinstate Trump travel ban, insisting security at risk

, , ,

Oral arguments have been scheduled for Tuesday evening in a battle that could go all the way to the supreme court

The justice department has urged a federal court to reinstate Donald Trumps controversial travel ban, insisting that national security is at stake.

After a lower court judge blocked the presidents executive order suspending travel from seven majority-Muslim countries on Friday night, lawyers filed a brief with a federal appeals court on Monday evening.

The court scheduled oral arguments for 6pm eastern time on Tuesday. It was not immediately clear when it might issue a ruling. The battle could go all the way to the supreme court.

The Executive Order is a lawful exercise of the Presidents authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees, the department lawyers said in their submission to the San Francisco-based ninth circuit court of appeals.

The filing warns the courts against taking the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national-security judgment made by the President himself pursuant to broad grants of statutory authority.

It adds: The potential national-security risks and harms resulting from the compelled application of procedures that the President has determined must be reexamined, for the purpose of ensuring an adequate measure of protection for the Nation, cannot be undone. Nor can the effect on our constitutional separation of powers.

Trump faces his third full week in office having to fight a legal battle on the constitutionality of one of his signature actions and an unprecedented struggle to force one of his senior cabinet nominees through a deadlocked vote in the Senate.

Last Friday district court judge James Robart halted a 90-day ban on residents of seven Muslim-majority countries as well a freeze in refugee admission. On Monday, the policy faced new, stark criticism in court documents. Lawyers representing the states of Washington and Minnesota explicitly called the measure anti-Muslim and derided attempts to do otherwise as a sham.

Here, the sham of a secular purpose is exposed by both the language of the Order and Defendants expressions of anti-Muslim intent, wrote the lawyers in a 32-page brief.

Read more:

Comments are closed.