© David Ryder / Reuters
Trump's executive order from January 27 "drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination," wrote Chief Judge Roger Gregory of the Virginia-based US Appeals Court in the 4th circuit.
In a 10-3 decision, the majority of judges ruled that they were "unconvinced" the executive order was motivated by national security concerns rather than a "Muslim ban."
"Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation," Gregory added.
Along the same lines as the injunction issued by the 9th Circuit court in California, the 4th Circuit judgment quotes Trump's statements from the campaign trail to argue that the "ban on all Muslims entering the US" shows the president's executive order was motivated by bigotry rather than national security.
"Laid bare, this Executive Order is no more than what the President promised before and after his election: naked invidious discrimination against Muslims," wrote Judge James A. Wynn, Jr. in a concurring opinion.
The plaintiffs, which included several individuals and organizations, claimed that the executive order caused "injury to their family relationships," and that the "anti-Muslim message animating [the executive order] 2 has caused them feelings of disparagement and exclusion."
International Refugee Assistance Project and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society claimed that they had committed significant resources to dealing with the consequences of the second executive order, and that "they will suffer direct financial injury from the anticipated reduction in refugee cases."
Judge Stephanie Thacker agreed with the majority, but noted in a separate opinion that the court "need not - and should not - reach this conclusion by relying on statements made by the President and his associates before inauguration."
Thacker warned her colleagues that adjudicating the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution should focus on governmental action, rather than "judicial psychoanalysis" of individuals, and that "looking to pre-inauguration conduct is neither advisable nor necessary."
Exactly! The courts have no capacity, thus no right, to determine Trump's "motivations". And even if they could, where in the Constitution does it say the President's motives are to be considered? The Constitution specifically gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of any aliens or class of aliens into the U.S. if he believes it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” And he can do so “for such period as he shall deem necessary.”
Motives weren't considered In 1979, when President Jimmy Carter exercised this presidential power to bar anyone from Iran from entering the country until the hostage crisis was resolved. Nor in 2011, when President Barack Obama used this presidential power to bar anyone from Iraq from entering the country for six months.
The courts seem to disregard the Constitution nearly as much as the media disregards the facts these days.