Appeals court unfroze the anti-immigration decree trump
The court of appeals in the US upheld a lower court decision blocking the second, by the decree of the President of Donald trump on a temporary ban on the entry of citizens of six middle Eastern and North African States.
The decree, published on 6 March, concerned citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — countries with a predominantly Muslim population, which the White house viewed as a hotbed of terrorism. Compared to the first version of the decree issued on 27 January, from this list were excluded Iraq.
The effect of both decrees was soon suspended indefinitely lower courts. The courts saw in the decrees trump the violation of the US Constitution, expressed, in particular, that the prohibition in the largest extent affected Muslims, while the Constitution forbids the Federal government to give preference to any religion over another.
The US government is required urgently to reverse these court decisions.
The second anti-immigration decree was frozen, unable to act, a Federal judge in the state of Hawaii, which appointed the previous President Barack Obama. Appeal from the trump then entered in the Ninth circuit court of appeals in San Francisco.
In its ruling, the panel of three judges, all of whom were appointed to their posts by President bill Clinton, wrote: “the immigration, even the President, should not become a theater of one actor”.
The court decision States that the President trump could not prove that the entry of citizens mentioned in the decree of countries as well as refugees, is to the detriment of US interests.
The government insisted that a temporary ban immigration from these countries required for the period of the elaboration of measures to prevent terrorist acts on the territory of the United States.
In may, a Federal appeals court in Virginia considered an appeal against the decision on the suspension of the first, the January decree. The court dismissed the appeal by a majority vote, but this majority was made up exclusively of judges appointed by the presidents of the Democrats. Appointees of Republican presidents were inclined to believe the decree legitimate.
The administration intends to continue to defend the legality of his decrees to the Supreme court, where currently four justices are considered conservative and therefore more favorable to the arguments of the representatives of the trump, four more — liberal, and the ninth is between these two camps.