The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules against travel ban factors set by President Trump. On September 7, 2017 the Court said the part of President Trump’s travel ban, which barred immigrant grandparents, cousins and similar blood relations, must not be excluded from consideration for entering the United States.
President Trump’s travel ban pertains to six predominantly-Muslim nations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
The Ninth Circuit picked at why “the Government does not offer a persuasive explanation for why a mother-in-law is clearly a bona fide relationship, in the Supreme Court’s prior reasoning, but a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or cousin is not.”
In its 37-page ruling, the Circuit Court reasoned, “It is hard to see how a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, sibling-in-law, or cousin can be considered to have no bona fide relationship with their relative in the United States.”
The Court elaborated, saying, “Denying entry to these foreign nationals would burden persons in the United States ‘by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national,'” borrowing a phrase previously submitted by Pres. Trump. It seems the focus of the actual “burden” has a crazy hazy view.
Judge Ronald Gould essentially rebuked the president by asking sarcastically “from what universe” did the government decipher that grandparents were not a close familial relation.
The Court also attributed some relevancy regarding funding already invested in/by resettlement agencies which proffered housing, furniture, and government financing, contending that such expenses would be for naught if refugees from the six Muslim nations were blocked according to President Trump’s travel ban proposal.
Mind you, the Ninth Circuit Court convened in San Francisco, California, a solid liberal-leaning sanctuary state.
No worries, though. President Trump does not appear to be sitting on his hands and merely taking it on the chin.
In response to the Court’s ruling from travel ban proponents, several Trump supporters took to Twitter with their remarks. Mark Romano tweeted:
Impeaching a few lawless judges every now and then would go a long way towards getting the Judiciary to follow the Constitution!
— Mark Pantano (@TheMarkPantano) September 7, 2017
In Twitter-sphere, back-and-forth banter ensued, to include outspoken anti-Trump enthusiast George Takai:
https://twitter.com/dickbradstreet/status/905948574176997376
Unsurprisingly, President Trump and the Justice Department have already determined to climb higher rungs on the judicial ladder. Next stop for Justice attorneys to argue travel ban principles is the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
As is often the customary ritual with the Trump administration, contingency plans are stacked and exercised without wasting time or backing down. One can say it was foreseeable that the Ninth Circuit, often deemed a biased, anti-Trump judiciary, would rule in the fashion they have today.
JUST IN: Justice Department to take latest ruling against Trump's travel ban to Supreme Court https://t.co/MTgC8e1f3X pic.twitter.com/dbtAUWUlSQ
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) September 8, 2017
Lest we forget Hawaii’s role in this entire saga, Attorney General Doug Chin trumpeted his anti-travel ban crusade:
— Hawaii AG Clare E. Connors (@AtghIgov) September 7, 2017
No worries, though. President Trump does not appear to be sitting on his hands and merely taking it on the chin:
https://twitter.com/SparkleSoup45/status/905968353675796480
The Supreme Court of the United States docket indicates October 10, 2017 as the date it will hear this case, and hopefully concretely decide our national security pertaining to foreign relations and vetting of potential terrorists’ transiency.
