State

Court says decision on Trump’s immigration ban won’t come Wednesday

David Pearce, left, and his daughter Crissy Pearce hold signs outside of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2017. President Donald Trump's travel ban faced its biggest legal test yet Tuesday as a panel of federal judges heard arguments from the administration and its opponents about two fundamentally divergent views of the executive branch and the court system.
David Pearce, left, and his daughter Crissy Pearce hold signs outside of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2017. President Donald Trump's travel ban faced its biggest legal test yet Tuesday as a panel of federal judges heard arguments from the administration and its opponents about two fundamentally divergent views of the executive branch and the court system. AP

A spokesman for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that no decision will be coming Wednesday from a three-judge panel that on Tuesday took under consideration President Donald J. Trump’s appeal to reinstate his executive order that temporarily banned refugees as well as travelers from seven Muslim majority countries.

Assistant Circuit Executive David J. Madden made the announcement in an email to reporters. Madden said the court will provide an advance notice of 60 to 90 minutes “when a decision is imminent.”

Judges Michelle T. Friedland, William C. Canby, Jr., and Richard R. Clifton questioned lawyers for about an hour on Tuesday on an effort by the administration to impose a stay on a U.S. District judge in Seattle who issued a temporary restraining order last Friday to block the president’s action. Trump’s order imposed a 90-day suspension on immigration from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lybia, Sudan, Somali and Yemen and a 120-day suspension on the entry of all refugees into the United States.

Judge James L. Robart granted the restraining order on a motion by attorneys from the states of Washington and Minnesota. They said the president’s action harmed thousands of their residents and disrupted their local economies. Robart on Tuesday scheduled briefings to be submitted through Feb. 17 on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.

Among other arguments, the plaintiffs maintain that the executive order violates provisions of the U.S. Constitution that guarantee due process and prevent the favoritism of one religion over the other. Administration attorneys countered that Trump issued the order within his legal authority and that it was necessary to protect the country from terrorist attacks that might emanate from the seven countries.

Andy Furillo: 916-321-1141, @andyfurillo

Related stories from Sacramento Bee

  Comments