SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Judges in Maryland and Hawaii both found that the order, which blocks entry to the U.S. for travelers from six majority-Muslim countries, was unconstitutional. (Photo: Master Steve Rapport/flickr/cc)
Trump DOJ to Appeal Maryland Ruling Against Muslim Ban 2.0
'We look forward to defending this careful and well-reasoned decision in the appeals court,' said ACLU's Omar Jadwat
Mar 18, 2017
The Trump administration on Friday filed papers to appeal a ruling that blocked the president's revised travel ban, setting up a new legal showdown over the executive order that opponents have called "Muslim ban 2.0."
Attorneys for the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed federal papers in Maryland, one of the two states that issued rulings against President Donald Trump's executive order this week. Judges in that state and Hawaii both found that the memo, which blocks entry to the U.S. for travelers from six majority-Muslim countries, was unconstitutional and violated the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment.
The DOJ only appealed Maryland's decision. Had the department challenged the ruling in Hawaii, the appeal would have gone to the same San Francisco court that rejected the original version of the travel ban.
Instead, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia will hear the new arguments.
William Jay, a former DOJ lawyer who specializes in appellate cases, told the Washington Post that another reason the administration is focusing on the Maryland decision is because it was a preliminary injunction, which is typically easier to appeal than temporary restraining orders, which the judge in Hawaii issued.
Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who represents the plaintiffs in the Maryland case, said that the rights group looks forward to taking on the case.
"President Trump's Muslim ban has fared miserably in the courts, and for good reason--it violates fundamental provisions of our Constitution. We look forward to defending this careful and well-reasoned decision in the appeals court," he said.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The Trump administration on Friday filed papers to appeal a ruling that blocked the president's revised travel ban, setting up a new legal showdown over the executive order that opponents have called "Muslim ban 2.0."
Attorneys for the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed federal papers in Maryland, one of the two states that issued rulings against President Donald Trump's executive order this week. Judges in that state and Hawaii both found that the memo, which blocks entry to the U.S. for travelers from six majority-Muslim countries, was unconstitutional and violated the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment.
The DOJ only appealed Maryland's decision. Had the department challenged the ruling in Hawaii, the appeal would have gone to the same San Francisco court that rejected the original version of the travel ban.
Instead, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia will hear the new arguments.
William Jay, a former DOJ lawyer who specializes in appellate cases, told the Washington Post that another reason the administration is focusing on the Maryland decision is because it was a preliminary injunction, which is typically easier to appeal than temporary restraining orders, which the judge in Hawaii issued.
Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who represents the plaintiffs in the Maryland case, said that the rights group looks forward to taking on the case.
"President Trump's Muslim ban has fared miserably in the courts, and for good reason--it violates fundamental provisions of our Constitution. We look forward to defending this careful and well-reasoned decision in the appeals court," he said.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The Trump administration on Friday filed papers to appeal a ruling that blocked the president's revised travel ban, setting up a new legal showdown over the executive order that opponents have called "Muslim ban 2.0."
Attorneys for the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed federal papers in Maryland, one of the two states that issued rulings against President Donald Trump's executive order this week. Judges in that state and Hawaii both found that the memo, which blocks entry to the U.S. for travelers from six majority-Muslim countries, was unconstitutional and violated the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment.
The DOJ only appealed Maryland's decision. Had the department challenged the ruling in Hawaii, the appeal would have gone to the same San Francisco court that rejected the original version of the travel ban.
Instead, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia will hear the new arguments.
William Jay, a former DOJ lawyer who specializes in appellate cases, told the Washington Post that another reason the administration is focusing on the Maryland decision is because it was a preliminary injunction, which is typically easier to appeal than temporary restraining orders, which the judge in Hawaii issued.
Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who represents the plaintiffs in the Maryland case, said that the rights group looks forward to taking on the case.
"President Trump's Muslim ban has fared miserably in the courts, and for good reason--it violates fundamental provisions of our Constitution. We look forward to defending this careful and well-reasoned decision in the appeals court," he said.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.