A The US Court of Appeals adjourned late Friday and refused to allow the Trump government to immediately grant a ban on asylum to all immigrants who illegally cross the US-Mexico border.
The ban is in conflict with an existing US American law and an attempted upset Congress, a panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, said in a 2-1 decision.
Story Continue Below
"Just as we are often reminded," writes the law "From the bank, may the executive legislate from the Oval Office," said 9th Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a candidate of Republican President George W. Bush, for the majority.
A US Department of Justice spokesman, Steven Stafford, had no comment. But he referred to an earlier claim that the asylum system was described as broken and said the department was looking forward to "continuing the legitimate and well-founded exercise of the To defend the authority of the executive to deal with the crisis on our southern border. "
This is the proclamation of President Donald Trump, announced on November 9, banning anyone crossing the US from the US-Mexico border between official ports of entry and asylum seekers. Trump issued the proclamation in response to caravans of migrants approaching the border.
A lower court judge temporarily blocked the ban and refused to reinstate it immediately. The government appealed to the 9th Circuit for an immediate stay of provisional injunction by Judge Jon Tigar on 19 November.
In a diverging opinion on Friday, the 9th Circuit Judge, Edward Leavy, said that the government had "adopted legal methods to tackle the current problems at the southern border. "Nothing in the quota majority law prevented a rule that categorically precluded asylum from entering a country," said Leavy, a candidate for Republican President Ronald Reagan.
In his Nov 19 ruling, Tigar joined legal groups who argued that federal law makes it clear that immigrants can apply for asylum in the US, regardless of whether or not they entered legally.
The President "may not rewrite the immigration laws to formulate a condition that Congress has expressly prohibited," the judge said in his order.
The verdict resulted in an unusual public dispute between Trump and the Supreme Judge John Roberts, after Trump dismissed Tig ar – an employee of Trump's predecessor – as an "Obama judge".
Roberts responded with a statement that federal justice "Obama judge or Trump judge, Bush judge or Clinton judge"