The Miss Travel Ban 2017: What to Know and What to Watch
On January 5, 2019, President Donald Trump issued a travel ban restricting entry into the United States of citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The president claimed the order was needed to stop “the threats posed by individuals and groups that support terrorism” and called for the removal of refugees and travelers from countries affected by terrorism.
However, the ban has become a source of criticism.
In the weeks since Trump issued the order, thousands of legal challenges have been filed against the travel ban in federal courts, prompting the government to seek to invalidate or modify it.
The Trump administration has repeatedly said that the ban is not a ban on Muslims and has cited its religious rationale for its existence.
On February 12, a federal appeals court in Maryland issued a temporary restraining order temporarily blocking the travel restriction.
The appeals court found that the president’s claims about the ban were “preposterous” and that the federal government had no authority to ban people based on their religion.
But the ruling is subject to review by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
This is not the first time that the courts have used the law to challenge the president.
The law has also been used to challenge Trump’s executive orders, including one to suspend immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries.
In 2017, a judge in Texas ruled that the Trump administration lacked the legal authority to suspend entry of refugees into the country after the government claimed the refugees’ religious identity would be protected by the Constitution.
In January 2019, a U.K. judge blocked Trump’s order on the grounds that it violated the European Convention on Human Rights and was unconstitutional because it was based on religious animus and discrimination.
A federal appeals panel in the U.N. Human Rights Council in September ruled that President Trump violated the U,S.
Constitution and international law by issuing the executive order.
However that ruling was not binding on the courts, and it was also not subject to a review by any court.