• 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.
B

BiggNife

Member
ICO_SotC said:
Thank god it's unanimous and they didn't mince words.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is basically the Justice Department telling Trump to go fuck himself.

C4Qo0PnVMAEiav4.jpg


feels good to actually see a part of our government working as intended for once.
 
S

Smiley90

Stop shitting on my team. Start shitting on my finger.
brau said:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...-9th-circuits-opinion-on-the-travel-ban/2327/

9th Circuit's opinion on the travel ban.

Easy D.
Click to expand...

I like this part

The Government contends that the district court lacked
authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order
because the President has “unreviewable authority to
suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The
Government does not merely argue that courts owe
substantial deference to the immigration and national
security policy determinations of the political branches—an
uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our
jurisprudence. See, e.g., Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d
1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that “the power to
expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute
exercised by the Government’s political departments largely
immune from judicial control” (quoting Fiallo v. Bell,
430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977))); see also Holder v.
Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010)
(explaining that courts should defer to the political branches
with respect to national security and foreign relations).
Instead, the Government has taken the position that the
President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly
when motivated by national security concerns, are
unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene
constitutional rights and protections. The Government
indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the
5 The States have asserted other proprietary interests and also
presented an alternative standing theory based on their ability to advance
the interests of their citizens as parens patriae. Because we conclude
that the States’ proprietary interests as operators of their public
universities are sufficient to support standing, we need not reach those
arguments.
Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 13 of 29
14 STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP
judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive
actions such as this one.
There is no precedent to support this claimed
unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental
structure of our constitutional democracy. See Boumediene
v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that,
even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive
could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction over enemy
combatants, because the “political branches” lack “the
power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”). Within
our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law,
a duty that will sometimes require the “[r]esolution of
litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of
the three branches.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton,
566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S.
919, 943 (1983)). We are called upon to perform that duty
in this case.
Click to expand...
 
B

Boke1879

Member
yea people that go all caps on twitter. He's pissed lol. He's probably screaming and going on a tirade right now.

I can't wait for the leaks after today haha. But I think he'll be tweeting all night. Good. Slander yourself even more.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Love reading some of the choice quotes from this thing.

And damn, Trump is in all caps mode. Must be fuming.

Anyway, proud to be a Washington state native and resident right now.
 
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