Challengers ask Supreme Court to block Trump travel ban
WASHINGTON — Opponents of President Trump's immigration travel ban urged the Supreme Court Monday to keep it from taking effect and to declare it unconstitutional, arguing there is now a "near universal perception" that the president was trying to implement a ban on Muslims.
From coast to coast, the challengers in two separate cases argued that changes made to Trump's original ban cannot fix its underlying problem — that it violates the Constitution's protection against religious discrimination.
"The First Amendment bars the government from making a citizen’s status in the political community dependent on his faith," Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin and Solicitor General Clyde Wadsworth wrote. "The president unquestionably violates that command when he issues an order that disproportionately burdens Muslim-Americans."
Hawaii's lawsuit, which was joined by several Muslim residents of the islands, led a federal judge to issue a nationwide block March 15 against Trump's revised travel ban. A similar ruling the following day in a Maryland case was upheld last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va. And on Monday, the 9th Circuit appeals court upheld the Hawaii challenge.
The Justice Department has appealed both cases to the Supreme Court, which could decide as early as this week whether to hear them. On Monday, both sets of challengers filed their responses, urging the justices to strike down the travel ban and citing Trump's own words — from Twitter and Facebook — against him.
"In this case, there is an extraordinary volume of publicly available, undisputed evidence that the order was intended to disfavor Muslims," the Maryland challengers said.
The cases revolve around Trump's plan to ban most travel from six countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — for 90 days and suspend the entire refugee program for 120 days. Trump said the pause is needed to give the federal government time to establish enhanced vetting procedures to ensure that terrorists do not infiltrate the United States by posing as refugees or legal travelers from those terror-prone countries.
More than 120 days have passed since Trump signed the first travel ban, but the administration says it has not been able to conduct its vetting reviews because they have been blocked by the courts. Attorneys opposing the travel ban and several judges who have presided over hearings have questioned that interpretation, saying the government should have concluded its reviews by now.
"The ban will expire, and the appeal will be moot, in a matter of days," the American Civil Liberties Union argued Monday in the Maryland case. "There is no reason for this court to grant review."
The president first issued a travel ban on Jan. 27, but that was shot down by courts a week after going into effect. Trump issued a revised ban on March 6, but that one was also struck down before it went into effect. The orders have now been struck down by federal judges in a half-dozen states, as well as two federal appeals courts. The Supreme Court is now the last hope for Trump.
In the administration's first court filing, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall wrote that the court is not allowed to psychoanalyze a president to determine the intent behind his actions. Wall argued that the revised travel ban includes no mention of religion and is legal on its face, meaning it should be allowed to go into effect.
The Hawaii attorneys countered that argument in Monday's filing, saying that psychoanalysis is not needed to understand the clear and repeated statements Trump has made about Muslims and calling for them to be blocked from the U.S. They listed comments Trump has made as a candidate, president-elect and president, and through a series of tweets as recently as last week, to show the true reason behind the travel ban, barring Muslims.
"The president's actual views toward Islam are irrelevant," they wrote. "What matters are his numerous public statements suggesting that Muslims are dangerous and should be excluded from this country, and his repeated suggestions that this order is designed to further that goal."
Read more:
Will Donald Trump's anti-Muslim words on travel ban hurt his case?
What President Trump has said about the travel ban
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to reinstate travel ban
Another argument from the Justice Department is that the Supreme Court needs to revive the travel ban to protect long-standing court precedents that grant a president broad authority over national security and immigration policies. Wall wrote that a more pressing, short-term need for the ban is to ensure that terrorists don't get into the country.
The Hawaii attorneys countered that argument Monday, saying the Justice Department has slow-walked the legal proceedings over the travel ban. They listed several occasions where the department took its time writing its replies to the court and offering prolonged hearing schedules.
"These are not the actions of a government that believes the immediate implementation of its order is necessary to avoid irreparable harm," the attorneys wrote.
Gomez reported from Miami.