Contact Us

1-800-793-0471

REQUEST A QUOTE

Contact details:

Would you like more information about us?

Yes! No thank you.
Your message has been sent successfully. Close this notice.

REQUEST A QUOTE

Would you like more information about us?

Yes, Please. No Thank You.
Your Contact Form has been sent successfully. Close this notice.
7 years ago · by · 0 comments

Appeals Court Won’t Reinstate Travel Ban

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to reinstate President Trump’s second attempt at a travel ban on all refugees and citizens of six majority-Muslim nations from entering the United States.  The Justice Department has vowed to challenge the appeals court ruling and take it to the Supreme Court.

The court ruled 10-3 to uphold a ruling from a district court judge in Maryland that blocked a portion of the order that temporarily banned travel to the United States by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.  In the majority decision, Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote that Trump’s executive order uses “vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

Judge Gregory listed televised interviews and numerous statements made at political rallies that, in the court’s view, indicated the true intentions of the order.  He cited a rally statement in which Trump called the second order a “watered down version” of the first order as well as a televised interview with Rudy Giuliani who said that Trump had asked him to devise an immigration ban within the bounds of legality.

The judge wrote that a reasonable observer would likely conclude the order’s “primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs”.  The government argued that Trump’s comments on the campaign trail should not be taken into account since they occurred before he took office on Jan 20. The appeals court rejected that view, saying they provide a window into the motivations for Trump’s action in government.

The appeals court questioned a government argument that the president has wide authority to halt the entry of people to the United States.  They were reviewing a March ruling by Maryland-based federal judge Theodore Chuang that blocked part of Trump’s March 6 executive order barring people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government put in place stricter visa screening. A similar ruling against Trump’s policy from a Hawaii-based federal judge is still in place. The Hawaii judge’s ruling also blocked a section of the travel ban that also suspended refugee admissions for four months. The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is still reviewing that decision.

The Trump administration has argued that the temporary travel ban is a national security measure aimed at preventing Islamist militant attacks. “That’s why it’s not a Muslim ban”.  The countries were not chosen because they are predominantly Muslim but because they present terrorism risks, the administration has said.

After the 4th Circuit Court ruling, Attorney-general Jeff Sessions said in a statement that the government would seek a review of the case at the Supreme Court.    White House spokesperson Michael Short said “These clearly are very dangerous times and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence,” adding that the White House was confident the order would ultimately be upheld by the judiciary.

 

Read more

7 years ago · by · 0 comments

Federal Court Upholds Suspension On Travel Ban

On February 9th, a federal appeals court in San Francisco unanimously upheld a suspension of President Trump’s executive order barring all refugees from entering the U.S. and restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries. In the unanimous decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled courts have the authority to review constitutional challenges to executive actions.

Last week, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation’s refugee program.  After the ban was put on hold, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports around the country.

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The panel declined to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S.  The judges rejected the administration’s argument that courts did not have the authority to review the president’s immigration and national security decisions. They also said the administration failed to show that the order met constitutional requirements to provide notice or a hearing before restricting travel and presented no evidence that any foreigner from the seven countries cited by the travel ban had committed terrorism in the U.S.

This controversial court battle has just begun. Now, the lower court  must debate the merits of the ban, and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seems likely.  When that happens, it could put the decision in the hands of a divided court that has a vacancy. A potential 4-4 tie would leave the appeals court’s ruling in place.

The appeals court only sided with the administration on one issue: the argument that the lower court’s temporary restraining order could not be appealed. While under 9th Circuit precedent such orders are not typically reviewable, the panel ruled that due to the intense public interest at stake and the uncertainty of how long it would take to obtain a further ruling from the lower court, it was appropriate to consider the federal government’s appeal.

Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, could not be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.  President Trump responded to the ruling on Twitter, tweeting “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”  The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the Supreme Court would review the issue.

Read more

Over 25 Years of Experience!

* State specific differences may apply to each insurance carrier or benefits provider, and each entity is responsible for their own contractual and financial obligations. Insurance products offered through HI4E.Org, Health & Life Solutions, LLC, and Health Insurance 4 Everyone, are not available to residents of New York or Oregon.

Get Social with us!

hi4e-800-number