If you just listened to the mainstream media, you’d likely believe President Trump’s travel ban enjoys almost no support. To hear them tell it, the order is not only racist, but is opposed by pretty much everyone. Activist judges have lent a sympathetic ear to that narrative, going beyond the law to obstruct the order.Of course, Trump’s travel ban enjoys a lot more support than the media lets on. And not just from those who voted for him in the election, but from legal experts around the country. In fact, the attorneys general of 12 states just jumped into the legal battle in support of the ban.
From The Hill:
A coalition of 12 state attorneys general and one governor has filed a brief with a federal appeals court defending President Trump’s ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority nations.
The group’s filing argues Trump’s executive order regarding immigration and refugees is a legal action within his presidential powers, the Dallas Morning News said Monday.“Congress delegated to the Executive Branch significant authority to prohibit aliens’ entry into the country, and the challenged Executive Order is a lawful exercise of that authority,” the brief filed Monday in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., reads.
“The Executive Order is not a pretext for religious discrimination, as the Order is grounded in national-security concerns and classifies aliens according to nationality — not religion.”
The move comes as the legal battle over the travel ban gets set to rage on:The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals last week announced it had scheduled a May 8 hearing for the government’s appeal of a lower court’s order blocking Trump’s travel ban.
District judges in Hawaii and Maryland issued separate orders earlier this month blocking Trump’s order hours before it would have taken effect.It took some mental gymnastics for a Hawaii district court judge to justify stopping the enforcement of the ban. In that ruling, Judge Derrick Watson said that Trump’s campaign rhetoric gave him sufficient reason to strike down the ban on the grounds of religious discrimination. If you’re confused as to how campaign rhetoric is relevant to the application of the actual law, you’re not alone. In reality, Judge Watson used his power to legislate from the bench.
The bizarre ruling was the reason the Trump team decided to appeal the decision in Maryland, believing the 4th Circuit may be more friendly to a reasonable argument. As the legal battle gets set to take yet another turn, some states have decided to join in the fight. Let’s hope even more sign on.
[Note: This post was authored by Michael Lee. Follow him on Twitter @UAMicahelLee]