The White House released a memorandum Wednesday declaring that the effective date of the president's executive order banning travelers from six Muslim-majority countries "is delayed or tolled" until all relevant court injunctions "are lifted or stayed".
The ruling by a three-judge bench of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was against the revised travel ban.
In response, Sessions claimed that the President's executive order is "well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe". But the case also underlies a disturbing truth: Even if opponents succeed in stopping President Donald Trump from implementing this particular version of the Muslim ban, the fight over the issue is far from over.
President Donald Trump amended his embattled travel ban to address arguments being made at the U.S. Supreme Court that it would expire Wednesday under its original wording. He promised during the campaign a "complete and total shutdown" of entry into the U.S.
Moreover, Shayan Modarres, legal counsel for the National Iranian American Council, explained in a statement provided to Mic that the continued effort to carry out this specific order could mean the administration plans to make the ban permanent if it passes through the Supreme Court.
Since that request, the ban has been dealt additional legal blows.
Iran Launches Missiles Into Syria
Iran's Revolutionary Guard, a hard-line paramilitary force, has seen advisers and fighters killed in the conflict. The IRGC said the missile strikes were a warning to deter future Islamic State attacks.
As in previous rulings, the appeals panel cited remarks by Trump that seemed to contradict his administration's attorneys, who had argued that the order, despite the president's rhetoric, was narrow in scope and not discriminatory in nature. "The President was clear in his landmark speech in Saudi Arabia: this is not about religion; it is about national security". It does not identify these nationals as contributors to active conflict or as those responsible for insecure country conditions.
The government disagreed, arguing that the injunction by Hawaii federal judge Derrick Watson had stopped the clock on the 90-day, six-country and 120-day refugee ban.
Timing now becomes a major issue. Watson blocked those portions of the travel ban before they could go into effect.
The San Francisco ruling was the second one by an appeals court refusing to allow the executive order to take effect.
Now, the DOJ is about to file the two last briefs in support of its case, and attorneys at the justice department are surely hoping Trump won't talk or tweet about it, or taunt the high court before they file.
- Iraqi Forces March Through Mosul
- Fox Sports Commentator Accidentally Identifies Brooks Koepka's Girlfriend as His Ex
- Why Microsoft's New Xbox Costs $500 - And Why That's Fine
- Canada's Brooke Henderson wins Meijer LPGA Classic
- 6 policemen killed in militant ambush in south Kashmir
- Whole Food shares keep rising, leading to bidding war speculation
- Shot US congressman still 'critical' but improving: doctor
- Trump calls House health care bill 'mean'
- US Soldiers Wounded in Possible 'Inside Attack,' Officials Say
- Theresa May to 'reflect' after disastrous election result