Appeals Court denies setting aside District Court order of temporarily restraining the travel ban order

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: After the Temporary Restraint Order by the District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle  against the travel ban in USA on 03-02-2017, the government appealed against the order in San Francisco Appeals Court, moving an Emergency Motion under Circuit Rule 27-3 for administrative stay and motion for stay pending appeal. The Court denied the appeal and refrained from ordering the immediate reinstatement of the executive order.

It was contended in favour of the executive order that the injunction contravened the constitutional separation of powers and harmed the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the nation’s elected representative responsible for immigration matters and foreign affairs. It was also highlighted that the aliens were being given the privilege by permitting an entry into USA and they possessed no constitutional right as such.

However, on the other side, it was contended that the work of the judiciary is to ensure that the executive and legislature comport with the country’s laws and the Constitution. Though the question before the Court was narrow, but it is the duty of the court to ensure that the impugned executive order does not prove detrimental either to the citizens/residents in the country or even the executive branch of the tripart government.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court did not set aside the order of the District Court and denied to reinstate the impugned executive order. [State of Washington, et al., v. Donald Trump, President of the United States, et al.,  No. 17-35105,  order dated  4.02.2017]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

fifteen − five =