| − | The '''U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit''' is the intermediate federal appellate court having jurisdiction over [[Maryland]],[[Virginia]], [[West Virginia]] and [[North Carolina|North]] and [[South Carolina]]. It handles appeals from the Eastern District of Virginia, the venue preferred by federal prosecutors in many cases, including terrorism cases. | + | The '''U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit''' is the intermediate federal appellate court having jurisdiction over [[Maryland]],[[Virginia]], [[West Virginia]] and [[North Carolina|North]] and [[South Carolina]]. It handles appeals from the Eastern District of Virginia, the venue preferred by federal prosecutors in many cases, including terrorism cases. It is also handling [[en banc]] the appeal of a district court ruling against [[Donald Trump]]'s travel ban in spring 2017. |
| − | The Fourth Circuit was traditionally the most conservative federal appellate court in the [[United States]]. It upheld the right of the [[Virginia Military Institute]] to refuse admission to women in ''United States v. Virginia'', 44 F.3d 1229 (1995), a case subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. In ''FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co.'', 153 F.3d 155 (1998), which the Supreme Court upheld, it ruled that the Food and Drug Administration had no authority to regulate tobacco. The court also ruled that confessions are admissible even when a defendant has not been read his ''[[Miranda v. Arizona|Miranda]]'' rights (''United States v. Dickerson'', 166 F.3d 667 (1999)).
| + | Although stacked with a 10-to-5 [[Democrat]] majority now, the Fourth Circuit was traditionally the most conservative federal appellate court in the [[United States]]. It upheld the right of the [[Virginia Military Institute]] to refuse admission to women in ''United States v. Virginia'', 44 F.3d 1229 (1995), a case subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. In ''FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co.'', 153 F.3d 155 (1998), which the Supreme Court upheld, it ruled that the Food and Drug Administration had no authority to regulate tobacco. The court also ruled that confessions are admissible even when a defendant has not been read his ''[[Miranda v. Arizona|Miranda]]'' rights (''United States v. Dickerson'', 166 F.3d 667 (1999)). |
| − | However, the court turned left after [[Barack Hussein Obama|President Obama]] appointed six judges to its bench in his first term.<ref>Frank Green, "[http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/th-circuit-shedding-conservative-reputation/article_bc5d4a00-3208-11e2-a877-0019bb30f31a.html 4th Circuit shedding conservative reputation]" ''Richmond Times Dispatch'', November 19, 2012, retrieved 07-12-2013.</ref> For example, in 2012 it allowed civil lawsuits against private contractors working at [[Abu Ghraib]] prison in Iraq to proceed (''al-Shimari v. CACI International'', 679 F.3d 205, ''en banc'', overruling two 2011 decisions by a three-judge panel: 658 F.3d 413 and ''Al-Quraishi v. L-3 Servs., Inc.'', 657 F.3d 201). | + | However, the court turned [[Left]] after [[Barack Hussein Obama|President Obama]] appointed six judges to its bench in his first term.<ref>Frank Green, "[http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/th-circuit-shedding-conservative-reputation/article_bc5d4a00-3208-11e2-a877-0019bb30f31a.html 4th Circuit shedding conservative reputation]" ''Richmond Times Dispatch'', November 19, 2012, retrieved 07-12-2013.</ref> For example, in 2012 it allowed civil lawsuits against private contractors working at [[Abu Ghraib]] prison in Iraq to proceed (''al-Shimari v. CACI International'', 679 F.3d 205, ''en banc'', overruling two 2011 decisions by a three-judge panel: 658 F.3d 413 and ''Al-Quraishi v. L-3 Servs., Inc.'', 657 F.3d 201). |