• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Federal appeals court maintains suspension of Trump’s immigration order

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

greatgeek

Banned
BWJinxing said:
I'm not sure what this implies. Splitting the court does what exactly? Based on the fox news article, yes it would shrink. But what does this actually mean? This doesn't necessarily seem like the elimination of the court, correct?
Click to expand...
Conservative western states would be free the tyranny of librul activist judges on the 9th Circus.
 
T

Taramoor

Member
BWJinxing said:
I'm not sure what this implies. Splitting the court does what exactly? Based on the fox news article, yes it would shrink. But what does this actually mean? This doesn't necessarily seem like the elimination of the court, correct?
Click to expand...

If they split the court and create a new 12th Circuit court as described in the article, they would get to choose the judges that preside over the western United States.
 
P

PrivateWHudson

Member
Turbo Killer said:
Yup, I love how all these Trump supporters are talking about vetting like it's some new concept, if only they knew how long it takes somebody from Iraq to get a fucking US visa.
Click to expand...

It's just more words. They still can't define "extreme vetting" because it would probably come out to be the same as the current vetting process. Extreme just sounds extreme.
 
K

Kenclops

Banned
"
IMG_1109PNG_gxrx7v8f3j.png
"

Somebody's smiling.
 
S

superdeluxe

Member
Woo 🔥🔥🔥🔥

President Trump tweets: "SEE YOU IN COURT"

WA state AG responds: "We've seen him in court twice, and we're 2 for 2" cnn.it/2ksIBiD
 
C

Cat Party

Member
Taramoor said:
If they split the court and create a new 12th Circuit court as described in the article, they would get to choose the judges that preside over the western United States.
Click to expand...
Basically, Trump would get to hand pick an entire Circuit Court of Appeals.

I believe the GOP has tried this before but it never really goes anywhere, since there is no need for it and it is such a pathetically naked power grab.

But pathetically naked power grabs are kind of Trump's thing.
 
C

Cat Party

Member
kamakazi5 said:
I'm sure it's been asked but how many courts are left to appeal?
Click to expand...
For this issue, just the Supreme Court. But, this is just a preliminary issue. No matter what happens with the Supreme Court, the case will go back to the District Court (in Seattle) where the judge will eventually decide if the executive order is legal. That decision will surely be appealed up the chain as well.
 
G

GameAddict411

Member
Incarmine said:
If this goes to the supreme court, is there a good chance, with the new guy coming into the court, that it might vote in favor of Trump?
Click to expand...

Even with the new appointee, the supreme court is still significantly more just than the orange POS. The supreme court will tilt towards left or right when it comes to unclear things in the constitution, but the stuff that Trump wants to do are obviously unconstitutional. There is a lot of evidence of intend to discriminate during Trump's election campaign and also after he won the election.
 
N

NullPointer

Member
I found this citation from the ruling worth noting:

Nonetheless, ”courts are not powerless to review the
political branches' actions" with respect to matters of
national security. Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 410 F.3d 532,
559 n.17 (9th Cir. 2005). To the contrary, while counseling
deference to the national security determinations of the
political branches, the Supreme Court has made clear that
the Government's ”authority and expertise in [such] matters
do not automatically trump the Court's own obligation to
secure the protection that the Constitution grants to
individuals," even in times of war. Humanitarian Law
Project, 561 U.S. at 34 (quoting id. at 61 (Breyer, J.,
dissenting)); see also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258,
264 (1967) United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258,
264 (1967) (”‘[N]ational defense' cannot be deemed an end
in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power
designed to promote such a goal. . . . It would indeed be
ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction
the subversion of one of those liberties . . . which makes the
defense of the Nation worthwhile."); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S.
1, 17 (1965) (”imply because a statute deals with foreign
relations [does not mean that] it can grant the Executive
totally unrestricted freedom of choice.").

Indeed, federal courts routinely review the
constitutionality of—and even invalidate—actions taken by
the executive to promote national security, and have done so
even in times of conflict. See, e.g., Boumediene, 553 U.S.
723 (striking down a federal statute purporting to deprive
federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by
non-citizens being held as ”enemy combatants" after being
captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere and accused of
authorizing, planning, committing, or aiding the terrorist
attacks perpetrated on September 11, 2001); Aptheker v.
Sec'y of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) (holding unconstitutional
a statute denying passports to American members of the
Communist Party despite national security concerns); Ex
parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944) (holding unconstitutional
the detention of a law-abiding and loyal American of
Japanese ancestry during World War II and affirming federal
court jurisdiction over habeas petitions by such individuals).
As a plurality of the Supreme Court cautioned in Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), ”Whatever power the United
States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its
exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in
times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all
three branches when individual liberties are at stake." Id. at
536 (plurality opinion).

In short, although courts owe considerable deference to
the President's policy determinations with respect to
immigration and national security, it is beyond question that
the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate
constitutional challenges to executive action.
Click to expand...


and:
The procedural protections provided by the Fifth
Amendment's Due Process Clause are not limited to
citizens. Rather, they ”appl[y] to all ‘persons' within the
United States, including aliens," regardless of ”whether their
presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights
also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United
States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S.
21, 33-34 (1982).
Click to expand...

and:

It is well established that evidence of
purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be
considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection
Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye,
Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (”The Free
Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends
beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets
religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be
shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial
neutrality.")
Click to expand...

Full Ruling PDF
 
L

Lego Boss

Member
Fancyarcher said:
This really shouldn't be a concern. A lot of Trump supporters are lazy assholes who use to make themselves look tougher than they are. In reality they won't do shit.
Click to expand...

The fact that for following and executing the rule of law (even Dubya said this is the cornerstone of any democracy) she is potentially at risk is sickening.

That's not a democracy. It's tyranny.
 
E

encephalon

Member
Okay, time to see what the supreme court does.

I'd really like news organizations to follow up on families they used as examples that were in limbo after selling all of their belongings. I hope they were able to move by now.
 
V

Vuze

Member
I laughed so hard when I saw Trumps caps lock tweet this morning related to the news. Dude has gone full 12 yo rage kiddie mode.
 
S

Sidewinder

Member
Slaythe said:
I take an immense satisfaction reading Trump's tweet.

You can tell the rage and anger.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see Gorsuch vote against Trump on the Supreme Court, that'd make him go berserk I'm sure: "THAT'S HOW YOU THANK ME FOR NOMINATING YOU?? I SHOULD LOCK YOU UP, TRAITOR! Sad!"
 
T

thestopsign

Member
Sidewinder said:
I'd love to see Gorsuch vote against Trump on the Supreme Court, that'd make him go berserk I'm sure: "THAT'S HOW YOU THANK ME FOR NOMINATING YOU?? I SHOULD LOCK YOU UP, TRAITOR! Sad!"
Click to expand...

I would imagine he would have to leave himself out of the vote due to conflict of interest, but who knows.
 
Z

zelas

Member
"The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”)
Click to expand...

My favorite part of the ruling. Gives me hope for when the real case comes down the line. Thank you Giulani. Thank you Orange Psycho and your ridiculous tweets.
 
S

SJurgenson

Banned
EmmanuelMunoz said:
Clearly didn't read the rest if that article. I especially liked the end.
Click to expand...

The article being quoted in the tweets is this one on the blog Lawfare.

Having just read it, it's pretty good. I have a few issues with it however.

Lawfare said:
Let's deal with the moral throat clearing and virtue signaling of the opinion first. Lawyers dream about becoming judges, particularly 9th Circuit judges, to write opinions like this. So phrases about how the President is not above the law, and citations to cases like Endo and Ex Parte Milligan are inevitable, as are the arch and clucking dismissals of presidential demands for deference in national security cases and the intoning of the fact that it's the job of the judiciary to say what the law is. Ignore all that stuff. It's exciting. It's fun to read. It's a reminder that we live in interesting and dangerous times. But it's not ultimately what this case turns on.
Click to expand...

Straight up, fuck off. A speaker/writer instantly looses all credibility the second they spout the chic alt-right term 'virtue signaling'. A megalomaniac president throws childish tantrums on Twitter and directly questions the legitimacy of the judicial branch multiple times -- then his Justice Department attorneys use the flaccid defense of 'of course the courts can't exercise oversight in this matter' -- and somehow the courts laying the absolutely justified smackdown are 'justice signaling'? Fucking hell.

The quoted statute the tweets are referencing is this one:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 said:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Click to expand...

The article and tweets quoting it seem to be missing (or ignoring) the fact that the court didn't really have to even consider it at this point. Congress can give any powers they want to give to the President, but that doesn't mean they are legal -- they still have to be constitutional and they still have to be executed for lawful/reasonable/non-discriminatory purposes.

At this early (pre-trial/pre-discovery) stage, the court just sidestepped on this particular issue by determining that there is enough preliminary evidence that the executive order is harmful to the States' interests and the public interest. That decision then justifies the continued effect of the temporary restraining order. The government attorneys completely punted on even trying to justify that the executive order was attempting to execute statutory powers for a reasonable purpose. When questioned on what the particular need was for immediately enacting the executive order and requesting an emergency stay of the TRO, they never answered -- they just gave the bullshit argument that the court can't review it, 'something something national security something separation of powers something'.

It did not matter to the court, when considering this early-stage motion to grant a stay to the TRO, that Congress enacted that statute -- the Government did not even seriously attempt to justify the need for the executive order in the first place. The ruling went to some length to call them out on that fact, and explicitly says that that government should put up or shut up:

Per Curiam Order page 27 said:
Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.(8)

(8)In addition, the Government asserts that, ”nlike the President, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process." But the Government may provide a court with classified information. Courts regularly receive classified information under seal and maintain its confidentiality. Regulations and rules have long been in place for that. 28 C.F.R. § 17.17(c) (describing Department of Justice procedures to protect classified materials in civil cases); 28 C.F.R. § 17.46(c) (”Members of Congress, Justices of the United States Supreme Court, and Judges of the United States Courts of Appeal and District Courts do not require a determination of their eligibility for access to classified information. . . ."); W.D. Wash. Civ. L.R. 5(g) (providing procedures governing filings under seal).
Click to expand...


The reason the ruling does not quote or go into depth on the statute is that the Government did not even attempt to justify the EO under the statute with evidence. It's not the court's job to submit evidence and defend the Government's actions -- that's the Justice Department attorney's job, and they didn't do it.
 
F

Fancyarcher

Member
Lego Boss said:
The fact that for following and executing the rule of law (even Dubya said this is the cornerstone of any democracy) she is potentially at risk is sickening.

That's not a democracy. It's tyranny.
Click to expand...

It's scary, yes. Our president thought he could be a king, thankfully the law told him otherwise.

Also, I'm not exactly sure this has to lot do with what I just typed, but eh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Supreme Court rules in favor for Trump in 'Muslim' travel ban
2
83
6K
ic3cait replied
Federal judge blocks Trump’s third travel ban
29
6K
Dev1lXYZ replied
  • Locked
Federal appeals court upholds nationwide block on Trump's travel ban
3
1K
Madness replied
  • Poll
Trump turns to Supreme Court to move forward on travel ban
0
1K
EYEL1NER replied
U.S. judge orders Trump administration to allow abortion for undocumented teen (WaPo)
9
2K
MrToughPants replied
Top Bottom