Seattle Judge is Wrong and Overreached With Nationwide Injunction on Travel Ban
“Two different courts, on opposite coasts, ruled in opposite directions on Friday. A Boston federal court affirmed Trump’s executive order as “bona fide”; a Seattle federal court enjoined it. Both spoke to requests for “nationally” effective rulings. Can federal courts give conflicting directions to government employees? Did Homeland predict this in their screenplays?
The Seattle decision overstepped the traditional boundaries of district court authority, especially when sister courts are ruling on the same issues. Both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit warned against issuing a national order in just these kind of cases.
Unlike state courts, federal courts enjoy the possibility of national reach in their decision. Due to the risk of conflicting decisions within the courts, venue-shopping by litigants (note how the ACLU, CAIR and the Attorney Generals aren’t suing in any Trump states), and the interference with the executive branch of government in their daily duties, the Supreme Court established precedents — precedents being what constitutes “evidence” for lawyers about what the law says — to limit this problem from occurring.
First, the Supreme Court warned against issuing any relief not individually and specifically necessary to the plaintiffs before the court. Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979). The Seattle judge’s ruling goes way beyond that, trying to apply his order to people all around the world. It appears the Seattle judge thinks the people voted him President of the United States. Welcome to the ego of federal judges.
Second, the Supreme Court warned against issuing any such relief against the executive branch, especially in military, immigration, or foreign policy concerns, given how precarious such orders can threaten security, and interfere with day-to-day functions of the executive branch.
Noting that “neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs,” the Supreme Court warned against extending its reach beyond “the particular federal plaintiffs” in the case. Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 (1975). The Seattle order tries to apply itself to millions of people around the globe. And folks think only brain surgeons look in the mirror and see God.
Third, as the Ninth Circuit, that governs the Seattle court, repeatedly ruled: a federal court should not issue rulings beyond its jurisdiction when other courts have also issued rulings on the matter. AMC Entm’t 549 F.3d at 770. The “principles of comity” compel that a court should not grant national relief when doing so would “create tensions” with courts in other circuits and “would encourage forum shopping.” The Ninth Circuit further reinforced that: “A federal court…may not attempt to determine the rights of parties not before the court”. What kind of case was that the Ninth Circuit said not to extend your ruling beyond the plaintiffs in front of you? An immigration case. Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983); Nat’l Cir. for Immigration Rights v. INS, 743 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1984).
The Supreme Court already reversed an order just like the Seattle order. In 1993, a few folks challenged the don’t ask, don’t tell restrictions on gays in the military. Shock, shock, they filed the suit on the west coast. Shock, shock, a liberal judge tried to convert it into a national injunction. Guess what happened? The Supreme Court reversed, issuing a stay of all parts of the injunction that “granted relied to persons other than the named plaintiff.” Dep’t of Defense v. Meinhold, 510 U.S. 939 (1993). Notably, that decision to stay the injunction was 9-to-0, unanimous. That is how obvious the precedents — the evidence of the law — is in this instance.
Just like every Senator looks in the mirror and sees a President, many federal judges look in the mirror and see a philsopher-king who the world should accept as a benevolent ruler. They aren’t. His biggest name to fame has been controversial rulings and statements in the Amherst expulsion case and a black lives matter controversy. Judge Robart might make an interesting President. But America didn’t elect him President. He’s never been elected to anything. His judicial superiors are about to remind him of that.”
….Continue reading more @ LawNewz
– More fake news. More predictable snowflakery from the same protestors every weekend, hectoring about some latest outrage. This has to stop. This is old.
This wayward judge will be overturned and the news cycle, complete with fake protests, will have done its job for the weekend, again. Over and out. /CJ
Boston Federal Judge Upholds President Trump & Declines to Extend Order Blocking Trump Ban
“President Donald Trump’s executive order banning entry to the U.S. to refugees and citizens of seven nations will take effect in Massachusetts on Sunday after a federal judge refused to extend a temporary ruling blocking its enforcement.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton on Friday dealt a setback to rights’ advocates who argued that not allowing into the U.S. people from the seven majority Muslim countries was unconstitutional. Trump had said it wasn’t a religious-based ban but intended to protect Americans from potential terrorist attacks by targeting countries with dangerous jihadist movements.
“The public interest in safety and security in this ever-more dangerous world is strong,” Gorton said in a 21-page ruling that also acknowledged the country’s “rich immigrant history.”
The decision contradicts those of federal judges in Alexandria, Virginia, and Brooklyn, New York, where the bans on enforcement of parts of Trump’s order were extended. A judge in Seattle is due to rule on a request to extend a nation-wide ban on the enforcement of parts of the order later.”
….Continue reading more @ Bloomberg
Federal Judge Halts Trumps Unconstitutional Travel Ban Nationwide
– Youtube | CNN
Trump fumes, vows to act, after judge lifts travel ban
– Yahoo News
“U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday denounced a judge who lifted a travel ban for citizens of seven mainly Muslim countries, vowing that his government would reinstate it as affected travelers scrambled for tickets to try to quickly enter the United States.
The Washington state lawsuit is the first to test the broad constitutionality of Trump’s travel ban, which has been condemned by rights groups that consider it discriminatory.
“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Trump said on Twitter. It is unusual for a president to attack a member of the judiciary, which is an independent arm of the U.S. government.
“When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot, come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security – big trouble!” Trump tweeted.
Because of the temporary restraining order, the U.S. government said travelers with valid visas would be allowed to enter the country. The State Department said almost 60,000 visas had been suspended because of Trump’s ban.
“This is an instance where people could really slip through the cracks and get detained and nobody would know,” said John Biancamano, 35, an attorney volunteering his services.
The Department of Homeland Security said on Saturday it would return to its normal procedures for screening travelers but that the Trump administration would fight to overturn Friday’s ruling.
Some travelers told Reuters they were cautious about the sudden change. Overnight, some international airlines were uncertain about whether they could sell tickets to travelers from the countries in Trump’s ban.”
….Continue reading @ Yahoo News
State Dept reinstates cancelled visas as WH fights restraining order
– Hot Air
“Let’s pause for a moment to recall that this is how the systems of checks and balances works, and has worked in the past. In fact, nearly the same set of circumstances took place when Barack Obama tried using executive authority for the DAPA and DACA programs, with DHS calling it “prosecutorial discretion.” Twenty-six states sued over the executive branch’s defiance of statutes and the extra costs it imposed on the states, and a district court issued TROs which were upheld in the Fifth Circuit and applied to all states. Judge Robart pointedly noted that he followed the same logic and cited Texas vs US as his precedent (page 6, lines 1-8), even though Robart’s court is in the 9th Circuit.
Still, this TRO seems like a reach. DAPA and DACA forced states to spend money on programs without authorization from Congress while leaving illegal immigrants unprosecuted. The authority to restrict access to the US falls more within the executive branch’s authority, both as a constitutional and statutory issue. As long as the policy has a rational basis and is tailored to that rational purpose while dealing with people with no legal status as US residents, the White House should be able to enforce their policy without interference from the court. A temporary restriction on entries from only seven high-risk nations is at least a rational approach, even if it’s a policy with which some may disagree.”
…..Continue reading more @ Hot Air