<p>The nation erupted into protest last month when Trump signed an executive order banning visa holders and refugees traveling from seven Muslim nations. ;</p>
<p>Supporters view the ban as a necessary tactic in fighting terrorism, but opponents argue that it ;violates equal-protection and due process rights and defies the First Amendment&rsquo;s prohibition of favoring one religion over another.</p>
<p><a href="https://punchingbagpost.com/court-rejects-trump-travel-ban---appeal-delayed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>As I wrote last week</strong></a>, the Justice Department filed an appeal after a Seattle judge issued a temporary nationwide restraining order on the travel ban. This week, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously voted to reject Trump&rsquo;s request to reinstate the travel ban.  ; ;</p>
<p>The San Francisco-based court decided that the restraining order against the ban would remain in effect while a federal judge reviews a lawsuit on the policy.  ;</p>
<p>&ldquo;We hold that the government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay,&#8221; stated the court. ;</p>
<p>The three-judge panel &ldquo;forcefully asserted the judiciary&rsquo;s independent authority to act as a check on executive power,&rdquo; reports <em>The Hill. ;</em></p>
<p>The hearing, which focused on whether the travel ban should stay in effect while courts consider the policy&rsquo;s lawfulness, involved Jimmy Carter appointee William C. Canby, Barack Obama appointee Michelle T. Friedland, and George W. Bush appointee Richard R. Clifton.  ;</p>
<p>The court&#8217;s decision means that refugees and visa holders from the seven Muslim nations specified in the Jan. 27th order will be allowed to enter the US under normal procedures. ;</p>
<p>The judges delivered a scathing rebuke of Trump&rsquo;s arguments alongside the ruling, insisting that the ban would cause &ldquo;irreparable injury&rdquo; if left intact and noting that the administration had failed to provide evidence that any illegal immigrants from the seven nations named in the ban had been involved in a terrorist attack in the US. ;</p>
<p>The executive action &ldquo;runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,&rdquo; wrote the judges. &ldquo;Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree.&rdquo; ;</p>
<p>Justice Department lawyer August Flentje agues that President Trump&rsquo;s opinion alone should be enough to justify the ban. Blocking the order &ldquo;overrides the President&rsquo;s national-security judgment about the level of risk,&#8221; he said. ;</p>
<p>Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton (R) slammed the 9th Circuit as the &ldquo;most notoriously left-wing court&#8221; in the nation. &ldquo;No foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the United States and courts ought not second-guess sensitive national-security decisions of the president,&rdquo; he said. ;</p>
<p>Legal experts believe the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, which remains one judge short following the surprise death of Antonin Scalia last February. A 4-4 tie would leave the 9th Circuit&rsquo;s ruling in place.  ;</p>