U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday has rejected request from President Trump administration to put the suspension of the travel ban on hold. It will be highly possible the case will go to the Supreme Court for further appeal.
The Ninth Circuit suspended the presidential executive order earlier this month to allow the litigation measures for the order to proceed. President Trump administration through the Department of Justice then requested the most liberal court in the U.S. to put the suspension on hold. The court decided Monday, Feb. 27 to deny the request, as reported by Reuters.
In his executive order, President Trump issued an temporary ban for the traveler from seven Middle Eastern and African countries suspected to harbor islamist militant. President Trump insisted that his intent to issue the order is to protect America from the radical islamic terrorism attack. However, his opponent suspected the intent is to ban people based on their religious belief, considering the seven countries are predominantly muslim countries.
President Trump defended the order in the news conference on Feb. 16, San Fransisco Chronicle reported. At first, the president said that he would revise the order. Later on, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer informed reporter that President Trump will fight on both front to defend the executive order.
Prior to the decision from the Court of Appeals, lawyers from the Department of Justice said on Friday that the Court of Appeals should put the suspension on hold. While on the other hand, the plaintiffs, consist of lawyers from state of Washington and Minnesota argued that President Trump had to rescind the order.
The government will likely to file an appeal to Supreme Court to defend the order. The 9th Circuit is known to be the most liberal court in the U.S. and has the high overturn of case from the other twelve court of appeals. Meanwhile, former New Jersey judge Andrew Napolitano, who is now the senior judiciary analyst for Fox News called the 9th Circuit court ruling as intellectually dishonest below:
