<p><em></p><p>It may be back to the drawing board for the Trump administration as it was dealt another blow to its <a href="http://ca.travelpulse.com/news/impacting-travel/president-trump-signs-travel-ban-20.html">latest travel ban</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/4th-circuit-travel-ban/" target="_blank">CNN</a> reports the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 10-3 ruling, upheld a lower court's previous block on the U.S. president's executive order referred to as the travel ban.</p><p>It was the second of such orders, the first, which included Iraq, had been blocked in January.</p><p>Travel Ban 2.0, as it was popularly referred to, was similar to the first iteration and blocked travel entry from six predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen - Iraq was exempted in the second version.</p><p>The 4th Circuit mined Trump's previous comments and social media posts to determine this executive order was more about banning people based on religion.</p><p>CNN posts a portion of the ruling: "The evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, creates a compelling case that (the executive order's) primary purpose is religious. Then-candidate Trump's campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States."</p><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/us/politics/trump-travel-ban-blocked.html?_r=0" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> cites that the same ruling that issues the executive order, "drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination."</p><p>CNN quotes its resident legal analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, Steve Vladeck, who offers thoughts on the impact of the ruling.</p><p>Vladeck called it, "an enormous victory for the challengers to the travel ban, and a huge loss [for the president]."</p><p>The analyst continued: "In its first test before a federal appeals court, the second, more nuanced version of the Executive Order still failed miserably -- and, once again, largely because of President Trump's own words, tweets, and statements. About the only thing the 10 judges in the majority disagreed about was whether President Trump's campaign statements are relevant to his motive -- but even the judges who said no still thought there was enough evidence of discriminatory intent since his inauguration to strike down the ban."</p><p>This specific case may very well find its way into the hands of the highest court in the land.</p>
Topics From This Article to Explore
