		<div class="wpcnt">
			<div class="wpa">
				<span class="wpa-about">Advertisements</span>
				<div class="u top_amp">
							<amp-ad width="300" height="265"
		 type="pubmine"
		 data-siteid="111265417"
		 data-section="2">
		</amp-ad>
				</div>
			</div>
		</div><p>A US court has refused to reinstate Donald Trump&#8217;s ban on travellers from seven predominantly-Muslim nations.</p>
<p>The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously-barred travellers to enter the US.</p>
<p>An appeal to the US Supreme Court is possible.</p>
<p>US District Judge James Robart, sitting in Seattle, issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued.</p>
<p>The US Justice Department appealed to the San Francisco court, where government lawyers argued that the ban was a &#8220;lawful exercise&#8221; of the president&#8217;s authority and that the seven countries had raised terrorism concerns.</p>
<p><a href="http://londonglossy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IMG_0709.jpg"><img src="http://londonglossy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IMG_0709-1024x387.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="242" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-106585" /></a></p>
<p>The states said Mr Trump&#8217;s executive order unconstitutionally blocked entry based on religion.<br />
In its unanimous decision, the appeal court rejected the Trump administration&#8217;s claim that the court did not have the authority to review the president&#8217;s executive order.</p>
<p>The panel of three judges noted that Washington and Minnesota had raised serious allegations about religious discrimination.</p>
<p>The court said the government had not shown a likelihood it would succeed in appealing to reinstate the travel ban, nor had it shown that failure to reinstate the ban would cause irreparable injury.</p>
<p>The panel said Washington proved it had the legal right to bring its lawsuit by claiming its universities would suffer harm &#8211; one of the questions that the judges considered.</p>
<p>Universities have complained about students and staff becoming stranded overseas.</p>
<p>The appeal judges said the government presented no evidence to explain the urgent need for Mr Trump&#8217;s executive order to take effect immediately and said courts have the authority to review presidential orders on immigration and national security.</p>
<p>The appeal court said the government had not pointed to any evidence that anyone from the countries named in the executive order had committed a &#8220;terrorist attack&#8221; in the US.</p>
<p>The panel said: &#8220;Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the executive order, the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.<br />
&#8220;We disagree, as explained above&#8221;.</p>
			<div style="padding-bottom:15px;" class="wordads-tag" data-slot-type="belowpost">
				<div id="atatags-dynamic-belowpost-68e20f05eeb01">
					<script type="text/javascript">
						window.getAdSnippetCallback = function () {
							if ( false === ( window.isWatlV1 ?? false ) ) {
								// Use Aditude scripts.
								window.tudeMappings = window.tudeMappings || [];
								window.tudeMappings.push( {
									divId: 'atatags-dynamic-belowpost-68e20f05eeb01',
									format: 'belowpost',
								} );
							}
						}

						if ( document.readyState === 'loading' ) {
							document.addEventListener( 'DOMContentLoaded', window.getAdSnippetCallback );
						} else {
							window.getAdSnippetCallback();
						}
					</script>
				</div>
			</div>
Discover more from London Glossy Post
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
