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)
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 Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
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.