|
| Nazanin Zinouri, 29, is greeted at the Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport in Greer, S.C., with kisses from her dog Dexter and well-wishers holding signs reading "Welcome Home" on Monday, Feb. 6, 2017. Zinouri, an Iranian engineer and Clemson University graduate, had been unable to return to the United States because of the executive order President Donald Trump signed that limited travel to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries. |
WASHINGTON
(AP) -- The fierce battle over President Donald Trump's travel and
refugee ban edged up the judicial escalator Monday, headed for a
possible final face-off at the Supreme Court. Travelers, temporarily
unbound, tearfully reunited with loved ones at U.S. airports.
The
Justice Department filed a new defense of Trump's ban on travelers from
seven predominantly Muslim nations as a federal appeals court weighs
whether to restore the administration's executive order. The lawyers
said the travel ban was a "lawful exercise" of the president's authority
to protect national security and said a judge's order that put the
policy on hold should be overruled.
The filing
with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the
latest salvo in a high-stakes legal fight surrounding Trump's order,
which was halted Friday by a federal judge in Washington state.
The judges are to hear arguments Tuesday.
The
appeals court earlier refused to immediately reinstate the ban, and
lawyers for Washington and Minnesota - two states challenging it -
argued anew on Monday that any resumption would "unleash chaos again,"
separating families and stranding university students.
The
Justice Department responded that the president has clear authority to
"suspend the entry of any class of aliens" to the U.S. in the name of
national security. It said the travel ban, which temporarily suspends
the country's refugee program and immigration from seven countries with
terrorism concerns, was intended "to permit an orderly review and
revision of screening procedures to ensure that adequate standards are
in place to protect against terrorist attacks."
The
challengers of the ban, the Justice Department wrote, were asking
"courts to take the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal
national security judgment made by the president himself pursuant to
broad grants of statutory authority."
Whatever the appeals court decides, either side could ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
It
could prove difficult, though, to find the necessary five votes at the
high court to undo a lower court order; the Supreme Court has been at
less than full strength since Justice Antonin Scalia's death a year ago.
The last immigration case that reached the justices ended in a 4-4 tie.
The
president's executive order has faced legal uncertainty ever since
Friday's ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robart, which challenged
both Trump's authority and his ability to fulfill a campaign promise.
The
State Department quickly said people from the seven countries - Iran,
Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - could travel to the U.S.
if they had valid visas. The Homeland Security Department said it was no
longer directing airlines to prevent affected visa holders from
boarding U.S.-bound planes.
On Monday in
Colorado, a graduate student who had traveled to Libya with her
1-year-old son to visit her sick mother and attend her father's funeral
was back in Fort Collins after having been stopped in Jordan on her
return trip. She was welcomed with flowers and balloons by her husband
and other children.
Two Yemeni brothers whose
family has sued over the travel ban, and who'd been turned away in the
chaotic opening days of the order, arrived at Dulles International
Airport in Virginia, where they were greeted by their father.
"America is for everybody," Aqel Aziz said after greeting his sons.
Syrian
immigrant Mathyo Asali said he thought his life was "ruined" when he
landed at Philadelphia International Airport on Jan. 28 only to be
denied entry to the United States. Asali, who returned to Damascus, said
he figured he'd be inducted into the Syrian military. He was back on
U.S. soil Monday.
"It's really nice to know
that there's a lot of people supporting us," Asali told Gov. Tom Wolf,
who greeted the family at a relative's house in Allentown.
The legal fight involves two divergent views of the role of the executive branch and the court system.
The
government has asserted that the president alone has the power to
decide who can enter or stay in the United States, while Robart has said
a judge's job is to ensure that an action taken by the government
"comports with our country's laws."
His Friday
ruling triggered a Twitter rant by Trump, who dismissed Robart as a
"so-called judge." On Sunday, Trump tweeted, "Just cannot believe a
judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame
him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"
States
challenging the ban have been joined by technology companies, who have
said it makes it more difficult to recruit employees. National security
officials under President Barack Obama have also come out against it. A
declaration filed by John Kerry and Madeleine Albright, former
secretaries of state, and others said the ban would disrupt lives and
cripple U.S. counterterrorism partnerships without making the nation
safer.
"It will aid ISIL's propaganda effort
and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the
United States is at war with Islam," they wrote.
How
and when a case might get to the Supreme Court is unclear. The travel
ban itself is to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course
before a higher court takes up the issue. Or the administration could
change it in any number of ways that would keep the issue alive.
The
bench also could be full, with a new ninth justice on board, by the
time the court is ready to hear arguments. If Judge Neil Gorsuch is
confirmed this spring as Senate Republicans hope, chances of a tie vote
would disappear.
