US appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump’s travel ban

A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Thursday ruled to uphold the nationwide injunction that’s blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order to close US borders to certain immigrants and refugees worldwide.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced its decision late Thursday afternoon, two days after it heard arguments on both sides of the issue from government and plaintiffs’ attorneys.

The court unanimously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, by a vote of 3-0, which allows the restraining order to continue while a federal judge further evaluates the order’s legality.

“Our decision is guided by four questions: Whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and where the public interest lies,” the court wrote in its 29-page ruling.

“We conclude that the government has failed to clear each of the first two critical steps. We also conclude that the final two factors do not militate in favor of a stay.”

The decision is a major victory for opponents of the ban and a major defeat for the president’s administration.

Trump was quick to respond to the ruling on Twitter Thursday evening.

“See you in court, the security of our nation is at stake!” his tweet said.

The order, signed by the president Jan. 27, temporarily suspends US entry for refugees worldwide and bars US travel for immigrants of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen — for 90 days.

The Justice Department argued to the court Tuesday that the executive action should not be subject to judicial review because the president of the United States has broad legal authority granted by the Constitution and Congress to act in the national interest.

“There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” the court said in its ruling Thursday. “Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law.”

By Doug G. Ware