Fourth Circuit Upholds Block of Revised Travel Freeze, Jeopardizing National Security

Article author: 
RJ Hauman
Article publisher: 
Article date: 
30 May 2017
Article category: 
National News
Article Body: 

Last Thursday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling blocking a key provision of President Donald Trump’s revised “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” executive order (EO-2), dealing another blow to an administration repeatedly stymied by activist judges as it attempts to enhance national security. (Daily Caller, May 25, 2017; International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump) In a divided ruling, the Richmond-based federal appeals court affirmed a nationwide injunction from the U.S. District Court of Maryland barring enforcement of Section 2 of the of the order, which sought to institute a 90-day freeze on the entry of individuals from Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan—all countries designated by Congress and the Obama administration as posing national security risks. (Daily Caller, May 25, 2017) The ruling comes as the Ninth Circuit is considering a similar appeal over the president’s revised travel freeze, although that case also involves refugee admissions. (Id.)...

In a statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions blasted the decision of the divided court, maintaining that President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe. (Justice Department Press Release, May 25, 2017) “As the dissenting judges explained, the executive order is a constitutional exercise of the President’s duty to protect our communities from terrorism. The president is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States,” Sessions said. (Id.) “This Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the power and duty of the executive branch to protect the people of this country from danger, and will seek review of this case in the United States Supreme Court,” he added. (Id.)