Maryland’s US District Court Judge Theodore Chuang’s decision on the president’s executive order barring foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the country was published Thursday morning.
Judge Chuang imposed a narrower, but potentially longer-lasting, preliminary injunction on the executive order, making it much tougher than the temporary restraining order imposed by US District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu on Wednesday. Administration lawyers decided to seek “clarification” on the Hawaii ruling before going to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Judge Chuang’s 43-page decision, he detailed many of Trump’s comments about Muslims made on the campaign trail and concluded that while there were many significant changes in the second executive order – “the history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban.”
The Fourth Circuit
The Justice Department has yet to file its formal appellate brief to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, but that is exactly where it will be heard. And just so everyone knows, the court does not publicize beforehand which judges will be hearing the case.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is sometimes referred to as the Fourth Circuit. It is but one of 13 federal appellate courts in the United States and has appellate jurisdiction over cases originating in federal courts in the states of South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia.
The Fourth Circuit has 15 judges and there are no vacancies nor are there any pending nominations to the court at this time. For those following the executive order case, it might be interesting to note that the court consists of 59 percent Democrat-appointed judges and 41 percent Republican-appointed judges, although this does not reflect on their opinions in past cases.
ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat, who is representing refugee aid groups and foreign nationals, argued the case for the plaintiffs in Maryland. He was quoted by WTVR.com Richmond as saying, “We look forward to defending this careful and well-reasoned decision in the appeals court.”
