4th Circuit Upholds Block On Travel Ban Because Of ‘Things Trump Said During Campaign’ [VIDEO]

4th Circuit Upholds Block On Travel Ban Because Of ‘Things Trump Said During Campaign’ [VIDEO]

4th Circuit Upholds Block On Travel Ban Because Of ‘Things Trump Said During Campaign’ [VIDEO]

Well, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued their ruling about President Trump’s Executive Order 13769. You know, that EO that called for a 90-day halt of people coming from countries that are hotbeds of terrorism so the vetting process can be managed better? Yes, that one. The court heard arguments on the case two weeks ago.

You can read the entire ruling here. Let’s take a look at some of the highlights, shall we? According to the 4th Circuit, the text of the EO is super duper vague on national security but is DRIPPING with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.

I’d say it’s a sure bet that Judge Gregory and the rest of the 4th Circuit are NOT fans of President Trump.

Moreover, their ruling shows they believe that this was a Muslim ban rather than a travel ban, and that Islam in all forms is nice, sweet, pretty, and chock full of rainbows and unicorns.  

Oh, but that’s not all. Nope, in their opinion, these learned and supposedly objective judges, cited ‘things Trump, Guiliani, Katrina Pierson, and others said’ as part of their reasoning to uphold the ban! In other words, the 4th Circuit’s ruling WASN’T made on the merits of the law. Instead they ruled on what a candidate and campaign surrogates said on the campaign trail!

Aren’t judges supposed to be neutral and rule ONLY on the law? Why yes, yes they are! Did the 4th Circuit do so? Why no, they did not.

A quick reminder of the countries that were named in the Executive Order.

While those on the 4th Circuit cannot and should not use what is in the news to decide their case, one thing I will point out. Currently EIGHT people are under arrest for the terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena. The terrorist, his two brothers, and his father are among those nine. Wanna guess what country they are from, had been visiting, and were living in? Ding!! If you guessed Libya you are right on the money!


Three judges dissented from the majority.

Opening the door to the use of campaign statements to inform the text of later executive orders has no rational limit. If a court, dredging through the myriad remarks of a campaign, fails to find material to produce the desired outcome, what stops it from probing deeper to find statements from a previous campaign, or from a previous business conference, or from college?…

The danger of the majority’s new rule is that it will enable any court to justify its decision to strike down any executive action with which it disagrees. It need only find one statement that contradicts the stated reasons for a subsequent executive action and thereby pronounce that reasons for the executive action are a pretext. This, I submit, is precisely what the majority opinion does.

Exactly. They put politics above the law, and they are wrong. This ban was NOT a Muslim ban, it was a TRAVEL ban. But the liberals and far too many judges don’t seem to care about that. This is a definitive issue of national security, but they’d rather we apologize for being big ole meanies and just let terrorists do their thing.

Yeah, no. I’m not willing to play those odds, nor should anyone else. With this ruling they’ve opened a Pandora’s box that they, and all of us, are going to wish they’d never touched. We can only hope that the Supreme Court, which is likely the next stop for the Administration regarding this case, will close that particular box before more damage is done.

Written by

  • Scott says:

    Unelected black robed traitors, doing what they can to destroy this country and the rule of law which they’ve sworn to uphold. They are wrong in this decision in so many ways, it boggles the mind. There is no way a rational person can come to the conclusion that they just ” got it wrong” this is a determined effort to subvert the President, his administration, and the Constitution which they pretend to protect. The President needs to start filling judicial appointments now, and the congress needs to cram them down the leftists throats before it’s too late!

    • Nina says:

      It is definitely mind boggling how non-judicial this decision was.

      As to the judicial appointments … Like Insty says – faster please.

      • GWB says:

        It needs to go beyond appointments to adding some impeachments. They violated their oaths and the rules of the bench in their ruling, imho.

  • GWB says:

    Nina, you missed something – the opinion notes

    in context [it] drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination

    Judges aren’t supposed to rule “in context”! That’s the very definition of Rule By Man, instead of Rule By Law!

    This is the very definition of an “activist court”:

    having concluded that the “facially legitimate” reason proffered by the government is not “bona fide,” we no longer defer to that reason….

    So, they don’t defer in any way to the Constitution or law, that specifically gives the President the power to do what he did. At least they admit it. And give any future impeachment proceedings the only statement they need to find guilt.

    The dissent says this:

    the court refused to apply Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), which held that courts are precluded from “look[ing] behind” “facially legitimate and bona fide” exercises of executive discretion in the immigration context to discern other possible purposes

    (Emphasis added)

    Legal Insurrection (linked above) does a good fisking of the ruling.

    • Nina says:

      Exactly! Activists have no place on the bench if they are going to rule by man and put political views above the law.

      Legal Insurrection is one of my favorites!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner