Trump Travel Ban Heads Back to Court 01/26 09:32
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Donald
Trump's ban on travelers from several predominantly Muslim countries in 2018,
the ruling appeared to shut down legal challenges that claimed the policy was
rooted in anti-Muslim bias.
But a federal appeals court in Richmond is set to hear arguments from civil
rights groups hoping to keep the challenges alive.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments Tuesday in three
lawsuits filed by U.S. citizens and permanent residents whose relatives have
been unable to enter the U.S. because of the travel ban, which was first
imposed shortly after Trump took office in January 2017.
The court is being asked to decide whether a federal judge in Maryland made
a mistake when he refused to dismiss constitutional claims made in a lawsuit
filed by the International Refugee Assistance Project despite a 2018 U.S.
Supreme Court ruling in a Hawaii case that found the travel ban "a legitimate
grounding in national security concerns."
The Justice Department argues the high court's ruling effectively puts an
end to the legal challenges. In a 5-4 ruling, a sharply divided Supreme Court
found that the travel ban was within the considerable authority U.S. presidents
have over immigration and their responsibility for keeping the nation safe. The
court rejected claims that the policy was rooted in anti-Muslim bias based in
large part on Trump's own tweets and public statements, including his call
during the presidential campaign for "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims
entering the United States."
Trump has said the ban is aimed at making the U.S. safer from potentially
"The Court rejected the argument that the Proclamation could be explained
only by anti-Muslim bias, and held instead that the Proclamation was rationally
grounded in legitimate national-security concerns and foreign policy
objectives," Justice Department lawyers argue in a legal brief.
The Trump administration is asking the 4th Circuit to dismiss the lawsuits.
But the plaintiffs' attorneys say the Supreme Court merely rejected a
preliminary injunction to block the travel ban and did not decide the merits of
the constitutional claims. The plaintiffs allege the travel ban violates
several constitutional rights, including the First Amendment's Establishment
Clause prohibiting the government from favoring one religion over another.
"The Trump administration has supplied ample and damning evidence of its
discriminatory intent, time and time again, so we're hopeful that any court ---
any fair-minded observer --- will see it the way we do, that it is a Muslim ban
that's aimed at the Muslim community and Islam,'" said Gadeir Abbas, a senior
litigation attorney with the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Federal appeals courts --- including the 4th Circuit --- had upheld rulings
from federal judges who blocked the travel ban from taking effect. But the
Supreme Court came to a different conclusion.
The travel ban's third iteration --- now in effect--- applies to travelers
from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It also affects two non-Muslim
countries, keeping out travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan
government officials and their families.
The groups suing the Trump administration say the 4th Circuit is not being
asked to decide the merits of the legal challenges. They say they are only
asking the appeals court to find --- as U.S. District Court Judge Theodore
Chuang did --- that their lawsuits can move forward to the discovery phase,
when they will seek records from the Trump administration on the origins of the
ban and how it has been enforced over the last three years.
In rejecting the government's motion to dismiss the lawsuits, Chuang found
that the plaintiffs "have provided detailed allegations for why the (travel
ban) is not rationally related to its stated national security interests and is
instead grounded in the illegitimate and unconstitutional purpose of
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School,
said that while the Muslim groups can legitimately argue that the Supreme Court
did not require outright dismissal of their legal challenges, the high court's
ruling did put a significant crimp in their arguments.
"It strikes me as willful blindness to pretend the opinion did not
substantially undermine these cases," he said. "It's very difficult to read the
Supreme Court opinion and not see considerable support for the arguments of the
Justin Cox, an attorney with the International Refugee Assistance Project,
said Muslim advocates will continue to try to prove that the ban is
"I understand why they want us to go away," he said. "But nothing requires
us to go away and we are going to keep fighting."