News Politics

Trump vows to appeal travel ban ruling to Supreme Court

U.S. President Donald Trump holds a rally
President Trump holds a rally March 15, 2017, at Municipal Auditorium in Nashville, Tenn. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

HONOLULU/NEW YORK (Reuters) A defiant President Trump has pledged to appeal a federal judge’s order placing an immediate halt on his revised travel ban, describing the ruling as judicial overreach that made the United States look weak.

In granting the temporary restraining order in response to a lawsuit by the state of Hawaii, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson found on Wednesday that “a reasonable, objective observer … would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”

Early on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in a similar case in Maryland brought by refugee resettlement agencies represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center.

Chuang ruled that the agencies were likely to succeed in proving that the travel ban portion of the executive order was intended to be a ban on Muslims and, as a result, violates the U.S. Constitution’s religious freedom protection.

“To avoid sowing seeds of division in our nation, upholding this fundamental constitutional principle at the core of our nation’s identity plainly serves a significant public interest,” Chuang wrote in his ruling.

The actions were the latest legal blow to the administration’s efforts to temporarily ban refugees as well as travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries. The president has said the ban is needed for national security.

However, the orders, while a victory for the plaintiffs, are only a first step and the government could ultimately win its underlying case. Watson and Chuang were appointed to the bench by former Democratic President Obama.

Trump, speaking after the Hawaii ruling at a rally in Nashville, called his revised executive order a “watered-down version” of his first.

The president said he would take the case “as far as it needs to go,” including to the Supreme Court, in order to get a ruling that the ban is legal.

RELATED: Christians in the pew and pulpit diverge over Trump policies on refugees

The likely next stop if the administration decides to contest the Hawaii judge’s ruling would be the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Three judges on the 9th Circuit upheld a restraining order on the first travel ban issued by a Washington state judge.

At that point, the government’s legal options were to ask for a hearing by a larger panel of judges or petition the Supreme Court to hear the case. Instead, the administration withdrew the ban, promising to retool it in ways that would address the legal issues.

If the 9th Circuit were to uphold the Hawaii court’s ruling, an appeal to the Supreme Court would be complicated by its current makeup of four conservative and four liberal judges, with no ninth justice since the death of Antonin Scalia more than a year ago.

The travel ban has deeply divided the country on liberal and conservative lines, and it is unlikely that a ninth Supreme Court justice would be seated in time to hear an appeal in this case.

Trump signed the new ban on March 6 in a bid to overcome legal problems with his January executive order, which caused chaos at airports and sparked mass protests before a Washington judge stopped its enforcement in February.

Watson’s order is only temporary until the broader arguments in the case can be heard. He set an expedited hearing schedule to determine if his ruling should be extended.

Trump’s first travel order was more sweeping than the second revised order. Like the current one, it barred citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days, but it also included Iraq, which was subsequently taken off the list.

The revised ban also excluded legal permanent residents and existing visa holders and provided waivers for various categories of immigrants with ties to the United States.

Hawaii and other opponents of the ban claimed that the motivation behind it was Trump’s campaign promise of “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

In Washington state, a group of plaintiffs applying for immigrant visas asked U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle — who suspended the first ban — to stop the new order. Robart was appointed to the bench by Republican former President George W. Bush.

Robart said he would issue a written ruling but did not specify a time line.

(Reporting by Dan Levine in Honolulu, Mica Rosenberg in New York and Brendan O’Brien in Milwaukee; Writing by Dan Whitcomb in Los Angeles)

About the author



Click here to post a comment


  • If Trump and company were capable of demonstrating why they need a travel ban using anything resembling evidence, judges couldn’t halt it so easily. As it stands, the only purpose of it appears to be to placate panicky ignoramuses.

  • Is that your definition of righting a perceived wrong?

    The US Courts are what will keep Trump from running America off the rails.

  • US Code:

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
    Whenever the President finds that the entry
    of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be
    detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by
    proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend
    the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or
    nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may
    deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a
    commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney
    General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of
    fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States
    (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney
    General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the
    United States by such airline.

    Constitution: Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 Congress shall have the power to:

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    Seems pretty clear to me the justices who have ruled against the travel ban are imposing their personal values onto the clear language of the Constitution and law.

  • And another Christian who claims to be a fount of morality wishing a violent death on other people.

  • I expect these liberal rulings are going to make possible for a
    radicalized Islamic terrorist to enter our country and somewhere a
    family will pay the price for their generosity. I hope I am wrong, but
    years of experience in the AOR knowing how many there are, I think it is
    just a matter of time before one or more slip through our vetting
    processes. For those who are opposed to these security policies because
    they sound like a “Muslim ban”, I hope your superior morality is a
    comfort to you when you see others grieving the loss of loved ones.

    And my opinion is informed from years of experience living and working with people inside these countries, many of who are fine friends, and many of whom I know would be very happy to kill me and any other American they can get to. Indeed, every single person who has ever tried to kill me or has killed a friend or comrade of mine, has been a radicalized terrorist from one of these countries.

  • I cannot concur. Impeachment for stepping beyond their judicial authority possibly, but this is not a reasonable action in a civilized society.

  • I expect these liberal rulings are going to make possible for a
    radicalized Islamic terrorist to enter our country and somewhere a
    family will pay the price for their generosity. I hope I am wrong, but
    years of experience in the AOR knowing how many there are, I think it is
    just a matter of time before one or more slip through our vetting
    processes. For those who are opposed to these security policies because
    they sound like a “Muslim ban”, I hope your superior morality is a
    comfort to you when you see others grieving the loss of loved ones.

  • You are still pretending there is a shred of evidence out there to justify a fairly useless and entirely prejudice based travel ban. If the proof existed, you wouldn’t have such across the board affirmation of holds on the policy.

    People like you blame partisan politics in the judiciary to make up the lack of substantive legal arguments you have to support your position. Sour grapes whining to excuse unsupportable arguments.

    Unlike your panicky assertions we have a well documented history of how refusing refugees promotes atrocity. You would rather deal with imaginary and astronomically unlikely results as opposed to address well documented and likely one’s

    You would rather have thousands of people likely to be murdered then risk a highly unlikely and unsubstantiated possibility one.
    “Poisoned Skittles fallacy of risk assessment”

    We did that crap before. It was shameful and murderous.

  • “People who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”
    Benjamin Franklin

    Do you have so little faith in our democratic system, freedom of speech and freedom of religion that you think it can be threatened by a given religion or violent miscreants? If you are so wiling to attack our own foundations of society for safety, what are you protecting? Nothing. I am willing to risk my life to protect our free way of life. Too bad you can’t.

    History doesn’t bear out your panic. Even when we literally opened the floodgates of violent organized criminal refugees, the country didn’t turn to crap.

    These are not security measures. The white house can’t even demonstrate they are. It is a token action to placate bigots.

  • Yes, that is his definition of righting a perceived wrong. He has already called for George Soros to be shot, Sierra Club members to be forced at gunpoint to dig Dakota Pipeline trenches, and me to be beaten with a bag of hammers. He’s a tiny little coward of course, so he doesn’t allow his comment history to be seen, but you can check the article from a few days ago about the Native American march against the pipeline. I wouldn’t take him too seriously.

  • A statute cannot permit what the Constitution prohibits. If the ban were to violate the 1st and 14th Amendments on religion grounds, the statute would not be a defense. Still, the government has a decent(er) chance of winning this one on the merits.

  • The Courts have a tougher time now. Constitutional protections end at our border. The last travel ban failed because it attacked the rights of people who were already vetted by our immigration system: Citizens, legal resident aliens and visa holders. They were able to claim a specific harm came to their already granted rights as a result of the travel ban.

    Since the new travel ban deals exclusively with people who have not been processed through our immigration system and on the other side of the US border. The big problem the government faces here is not the Establishment Clause, but the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”). The INA prohibits religious tests as a basis for visa consideration. But if the government can cough up a semi plausible/reasonable explanation for the ban which is not a ban on Muslims or unsubstantiated proclamations about the sufficiency of the vetting process, they would prevail here. The problem is, there really isn’t any.

    Two decent articles criticizing the courts’ actions here.

  • My main issue is with the vetting system. It is good for some locations, but in other locations there really is no data to pull because they are tribal areas and no centralized government services exist that keep these kinds of records on people. The only vetting tool we have in those area is interview, which is less than optimal.

  • Then they need to declare section of code above unconstitutional. Every single country in the world will have a majority dominant religious tradition, so practically any ban would be considered a religious ban.

    We are not seeking a ban because people are religious, we are seeking ban because these populations generate high numbers of people who want to kill Americans and have a track record of doing so in their home countries.

  • Guess I imagined all those ramp ceremonies in the countries which the ban includes.

    Yes, I am willing to put on a uniform and put my life on the line for the security of my country and to defend the Constitution.

    No, I am not willing to risk the lives of my family and other Americans when I know there are many people in these countries who want to kill my fellow Americans.

    I suspect the only risk you have ever endured to defend our free way of life is being offended at someone who disagrees with you. Put on a uniform, spend some time in the region, interact with the folks, then you will have some credibility to speak to these issues.

  • Bringing every single person at risk in the civil war between the Shia and the Sunni to the US is not the answer to this problem nor is it worth the risk and cost to the American public. Period.

  • That is a broad generalization which doesn’t really cover what is actually going on. Something that calls for simply closer scrutiny on visa applications and increased administrative support rather than the broad stroke of a generalized ban based on country of origin. Its not like CIS doesn’t deal with the same issue with other countries. Vetting also occurs when they get here as well. Asylum is a fairly hard won status which is not given particularly easily. CIS treats it with far more effort than any other kind of visa due to the benefits it grants (which includes excusing deportation/removal). You are missing the big picture here.

    Frankly even when Immigration officials were absolutely shoddy in their granting asylum (The Mariel Boatlift is an eye opening example of when asylum becomes mayhem), it hardly constituted something which deserves the hysteria you are giving here. We are talking not about an occasional lone wolf murderer or a small cell of potential terrorists here but letting in entire criminal gangs. A generation later the refugee population was not only well integrated, people conveniently forgot the crime wave it produced at the outset and look upon it kindly. The US has the best history of integrating refugee populations in a way nobody else comes close to.

  • No, this is not a “broad generalization”. It is a specific claim based on my experience serving on regional transition teams in these regions, working with my local foreign nationals who worked with us, many of whom wanted to immigrate to the US, and having some role in the development and implementation of various vetting process related to our working with mission partners in the region.

    You on the other hand do offer broad generalizations, born of how you wish the world was, not based on how the world actually is. You are not speaking from experience, but from preference. And it appears you are not willing to listen to those who actually have experience with these matters, who for years have been calling for more stringent vetting processes, and who for years have protected US citizens by the skin of our teeth far too many times.

  • Your rationale can apply to more than 50 other countries which are not given this kind of treatment. Yet somehow these 6 are special? No. You are taking about a problem immigration already handled reasonably well before. The only reason it comes up now is because we have a president making a direct appeal to bigots and hysterics. Somehow it is suddenly insufficient? Based on what? Absolutely nothing.

    Your experience here amounts to nothing more than anecdotes. You are not seeing the big picture and you are using cheap excuses here. Hence your previous reliance on a popular but boneheaded trope for risk management. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn’t be repeating such nonsense as your primary motivation here. You appear no more knowledgeable than the rest of the cretins by doing that.

    In no way can you even articulate how such a broad travel ban would even accomplish anything substantial. This is a token measure to appeal to hysteria.

  • You are so full of crap here.

    Can you think of any conflict abroad which was brought to our shores by immigrants and refugees?

    But if course Muslims are the exception to everything and common sense. Every Muslim community in the US is mixed with other groups. Guess what? They are not only pretty well integrated into the US but damn peaceful. Especially compared to European counterparts.

    Your panic is not rational. Period.

  • And of course you have been in all those countries and know them like the back of your hand.

    You are willing to attack our constitution and our way of life out of fear. You may have protected it before but you certainly don’t do it now. In fact you enable Islamicist propaganda. Giving terrorists just what they want. Westerners hostile not only to all Muslims but Muslims fleeing their control. For someone allegedly trying to defend America you are doing a good job for terrorists. You are more than willing to have real people murdered to protect from imaginary threats. That is some sick immoral garbage there.

    You are relying on irrational and unsubstantiated fear to drive your argument. You aren’t trying to protect anyone. You are causing harm. For someone who allegedly knows what they are talking about, you sound like every other panicky ignorant cretin.

  • .. and yet there is no record of any kind of mass terrorist activity from the hundreds of thousands of refugees and visa holders from those places we have already taken in.

    A track record that seems to end at the border. .

  • And thank you for proving my oft repeated point. “You’re not a real Christian like I am”is just a cheap way of justifying what cannot be justified by any other means, a way of flinging Theo poo at other people and extolling your own highly imaginary righteousness and superiority.

    You’d be amazed at how many True Christians (TM) would do exactly the same thing and say the same thing about you.

  • Your ignorance of our legal system is duly noted. All trials need evidence. Especially when you have a burden to justify your actions.

  • no they don’t. Consider an employment statute that says employees can be fired for any reason. If an employee claims she was fired for being a woman, Jewish, gay (not applicable in all jurisdictions), etc., a ruling in her favor would not require a finding that the statute was unconstitutional. All statutes can only be applied constitutionally.

  • My recommendation.

    Leave the fool to wallow in his spite Spuddie – it’s not worth expending thought on petty ignorance whether it be congenital or chosen.

  • I get it you got your legal education from Bartertown.
    -Two men enter one man leaves
    -Break a deal, face the wheel.

  • Saran wrap is for preserving food and microwaving. You can’t kill someone with it. It’s too flimsy. Don’t you know anything.

  • All except for one. And the one, I am familiar with as part of my duties. And yes, some I’ve been in frequently enough that I do indeed know these like the “back of my hand”.

    My opinion is based on real world threat matrix driven by real data and real experience in the region.

    Your opinion is based on how you wish the world was and the fantasy land you have created to sustain it.

  • Acknowledge there are other countries where radical terrorism is spawned to a degree, but not the same degree as the six on the list.

    It is my job to look at the tactical situation, how various ways of handling it operationally are effective, and make a strategic evaluation and recommendation.

    I continue to advocate for a ban on these six countries until more accurate and stringent vetting process a put into place.

  • I won’t acknowledge anything which hadn’t been substantiated by anything besides assumption. If the white house was capable of doing that to even the barest level, they would have been able to defeat the current stay order easily.

    Fact is, even people with much more responsibility and power in this regard think this travel ban is pointless and self defeating. Our own Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense along with a truck load of national security advisors. Mostly Trump appointees who will have a far greater grasp of the facts and situation on the ground than you do, oppose this plan.

    You will continue to rely on the boneheaded Skittles analogy used by Eric Trump during campaign speeches. You will continue to support islamicists by advocating denying entry of refugees fleeing them. You will continue to take Islamicist propaganda at face value and demonize all Muslims. Just what they want you to do.

  • And yet people who would be your superiors and acknowledged experts in the field oppose this travel ban as harmful to us interests and counterproductive. People working in national security positions, defense department and foreign relations. So naturally you know better than the secretary of defense and secretary of state here? LOL!

    You have spent most of your time parroting ignorant garbage from the presidents ignorant son. Yet you want to sound like someone who allegedly has expertise. I’d you did, why do you sound like every other ignoramus on the subject?

  • Secretary Mattis has requested exemptions for those who have served with us, who have been vetting by DoD, and who have track records indicating their support for the US, and this is something I concur with as well as do most of the folks I serve with.

    As far as the ban in general, what I hear is strong support, with some room for warranted exemptions.

    There are many at State who oppose it, but that is understandable. State has never had a great realistic view of the world. Not aware of senior leadership opposing it, just career folks.

    There are some certainly, as the press has reported, within the NSA, DIA, CIA and so forth who oppose the travel ban, but not a majority in my opinion.

    Can you provide documentation of leadership in national security who have opposed it?

    Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is on record publicly supporting the travel ban.

  • What you are hearing is that the travel ban is considered useless and counterproductive from anyone outside of Trumps fairly sycophantic and unskilled inner circle. People who actually have to implement it or are experts in the field are opposing it. Many in national security contemplating mass walkout over it.

    Suddenly you know better than a the people responsible for handling it? Can you pile the BS even higher here?

  • Far from it. You have a ridiculously large ego and overestimate how credible your alleged expertise looks here.

  • Strange, I haven’t heard anyone talking about “walking out” over this.

    Let me be precise. What I am hearing is that some within certain circles are opposed. But what I am also hearing with the folks I work and talk to is far more are supportive and argue for its implementation at this time based on the empirical information at hand until better more accurate vetting processes are in place.

    Somehow I think you are projecting with that last statement.

    It is obvious to me that you are a closed if liberal mind. You cannot even acknowledge that you have proclaimed an untruth, that SECDEF and SECSTATE are opposed to the travel ban. It runs counter to your narrative.

    So I’m done arguing this with you beyond countering false information you proclaim in a public forum. You have a very closed hard defined view of hte world that is not informed by real experience or facts. So be it.

    I’m thankful you are not on the national security team. At least I hope not.

  • Thanks to diligence and too often luck. We’d like to take the “luck” component out of it.

  • Learn english – then you might understand and correctly use big words like “ignorance”, “fake”, “news”, “agnostics” and “atheists” – they don’t mean what you currently think they do.

  • There appears to be an abundance of things you don’t know about but feel the need to pretend expertise on. has been following the story closely and fairly objectively for some time

    Once you start going on about how the people in charge of our military and foreign affairs suddenly don’t know what they are talking about, any pretension that you can make some appeal to expertise or authority turns to crap.

    “ have proclaimed an untruth, that SECDEF and SECSTATE are opposed to the travel ban.”

    You are so full of crap that even a simple search of news sources points it out.

    Mattis unhappy over travel ban order, drafting list of names of military interpreters to be admitted to U.S.”

    “Pence, Mattis Had Opposed Muslim Ban”

    “Rex Tillerson opposes blanket ban on Muslims’ entry into US”

    But most of all, it is telling the crux of your argument came from a complete ignoramus on the campaign trail

    Just to add insult to injury, ISIS loves the travel ban

    “Isis hails Donald Trump’s Muslim immigration restrictions as a ‘blessed ban'”

    Several posts suggested that the prediction of Anwar al-Awlaki – a US-born al Qaeda leader killed in Yemen in 2011 – that “the West would eventually turn against its Muslim citizens” was coming true.

    Confusion reigned at border control over the weekend over whether green card holders and those with legal work or study visas should be sent back from the US or allowed to re-enter if currently overseas.

    “[The ban] plays into this clash of civilisations idea, which is something that global jihadis need as fuel, to claim Americans are against them, that the West is against them,” Dr Renad Mansour, a fellow from the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, told The Independent. “Trump is seen to be validating what they already claimed was happening.”

  • You have nothing, so you resort to emotional blackmail. So obvious, but it shows your lack of morals and values.

  • Nah. Tony Kennedy has added his vote to some terrible stuff, but I can’t see he’d do that. There’s no basis for it unless you consider Koreamatsu v U.S. and today we regard that ruling as an atrocity.