USF Law Prof Bill Hing Says Federal Appeals Court Ruling on Travel Ban is Strong | USF in the News |

The second federal appeals court to consider President Trump’s travel ban against selected mostly Muslim nations reached the same result as the first — that the ban cannot take effect — but for reasons that struck at the heart of Trump’s national-security argument and could lessen his chances of prevailing in the U.S. Supreme Court.


In a 3-0 ruling Monday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the president had offered no evidence that temporarily barring immigrants and visitors from the targeted nations, as well as all would-be refugees, would protect the United States from terrorism.


Because Trump’s actions appear to be illegal, the court said, there is no need to decide whether they would also be unconstitutional.


Bill Ong Hing, a University of San Francisco law professor and director of the school’s Immigration Law and Deportation Defense Clinic, said the Ninth Circuit’s reliance on federal laws is more likely to persuade Supreme Court justices than citing campaign comments as evidence of a discriminatory intent.


“I’ve always thought that statutory grounds was stronger from the plaintiffs’ perspective ... (that) he’s going beyond the statute by saying everyone from those countries presents a danger,” Hing said. “He doesn’t have a factual basis for that conclusion.”