A second appeals court has ruled against President Trump's revised travel order temporarily banning refugees from six Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and Africa. The outcome was expected, however, as the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco is one of the most liberal in the country.
In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit insisted that even though the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president broad powers on the issue, immigration is "not a one-person show." In other words, if Trump pushes forward with the travel order, he will be exceeding his authority. The judges go on to argue that the administration never adequately explained why the current vetting process was not working and why the new travel order needed to be enforced.
The Trump administration has already appealed to the Supreme Court after a similar ruling from the Fourth Circuit in March, although the president is not happy with the "watered down" order the Department of Justice is presenting.
The judges on the Fourth Circuit, it's worth noting, were a bit harsher in their conclusions, suggesting that Trump's order was tantamount to religious discrimination. Language has appeared to be a key factor in the courts' decisions. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has told the press that the president's executive order is not a ban, but Trump has tweeted that is exactly what it is.
The executive order prohibits refugees from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from traveling to the U.S. for 90 days. In the original order, Iraq was also included.
