After deliberating for a couple of days, a three judge panel from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled unanimously that President Donald Trump’s executive order barring citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. will remain suspended until a Seattle federal judge can hear more arguments about its legality.
The ruling is a sizable setback for the Trump Administration’s national security agenda and the president did not hold back in sharing his disdain for the court’s ruling, tweeting “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”
The case was centered around the question of which would be harmed more by the immediate implementation of the order -- the U.S. national security or the residents of the states challenging the order, Minnesota and Washington. The Trump Administration also argued that the court had no right to review a presidential executive order, which the judges roundly rejected. While it’s not quite back to the drawing board for the White House, it does mean that now the choices are either to take the decision to the Supreme Court, who is not obligated to hear the case and, even if they did, could end up in a 4-4 deadlock with nominee Neil Gorsuch still awaiting confirmation, or to go back to federal court in Seattle and argue the constitutional issues.
Today on AirTalk, our legal experts will explain how the court came to its decision, share their thoughts on whether the panel got it right, and go through what happens next.
Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA
David B. Rivkin, Jr., constitutional litigator, served in the White House Council under President Reagan and the first Bush administration