A United States appeals court on Friday said President Donald Trump's travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries violates federal law and exceeds the White House's constitutional powers.
LOS ANGELES A federal judge in Los Angeles today issued the fourth nationwide preliminary injunction halting President Donald Trump's attempt to ban transgender individuals from openly serving in the military while it is challenged in the courts.
"We conclude that the Proclamation conflicts with the statutory framework of the INA by indefinitely nullifying Congress's considered judgments on matters of immigration", the panel added.
The opinion does not grapple with some of the thorniest legal questions raised by Trump's travel ban orders: whether they're unconstitutional because they stem from his calls for a Muslim ban during the presidential campaign previous year or similar sentiments he has hinted at while in office. "We continue to believe that the order should be allowed to take effect in its entirety", Ehrsam said in a statement.
It was the latest version of the "Muslim ban" that had previously targeted six Muslim-majority countries, but had been restricted by the Supreme Court.
Long (Island) Blockchain: Iced tea company follows tech craze and pivots
After announcing the re-brand, the company's shares rose by a whopping 300% as investors backed the opportunity. The company could not be reached at this time and so far we have not heard back from the SEC for comment.
"Congress's choice of words is suggestive, at least, of its hesitation in permitting the President to impose entry suspensions of unlimited and indefinite duration", the 9th Circuit judges wrote.
A federal judge in Seattle soon blocked it, and courts since then have wrestled with the restrictions as the administration has rewritten them. The court said the ban should not be enforced against people with a relationship with a person or institution in the United States. This case, a challenge brought by the state of Hawaii, is one of those challenges.
And the Supreme Court has already signaled that it will rule in favor of the president on the travel ban. The Attorney General's motion argued that California would have a harder time recruiting for the National Guard, would have to violate its own anti-discrimination law, and would be forced to require state universities to discriminate in their ROTC programs.
'This ruling again confirms that the president has gone far beyond the immigration powers that he has, and has ignored the law in issuing this discriminatory order, ' Purcell said.
"We disagree with the court's ruling and are now evaluating the next steps", U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said in a statement. The justices earlier this month had said the travel policy could remain in place while the cases moved through the legal system, delivering a serious win for the president.