General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal,
nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury."
Highlights of the decision (or stuff Trump will be tweeting about later)
Any emphasis is mine
On Standing:
We therefore conclude that the States have alleged harms
to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive
Order. The necessary connection can be drawn in at most
two logical steps: (1) the Executive Order prevents nationals
of seven countries from entering Washington and
Minnesota; (2) as a result, some of these people will not
enter state universities, some will not join those universities
as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research,
and some will not be permitted to return if they leave. And
we have no difficulty concluding that the States injuries
would be redressed if they could obtain the relief they ask
for: a declaration that the Executive Order violates the
Constitution and an injunction barring its enforcement. The
Government does not argue otherwise. We therefore hold that the States have standing.
Reviewability of the Executive Order:
Instead, the Government has taken the position that the
Presidents 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 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.
In short, although courts owe considerable deference to
the Presidents 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.
On Due Process:
The Government has not shown that the Executive Order
provides what due process requires, such as notice and a
hearing prior to restricting an individuals ability to travel.
Indeed, the Government does not contend that the Executive
Order provides for such process. Rather, in addition to the
arguments addressed in other parts of this opinion, the
Government argues that most or all of the individuals
affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due
Process Clause.
The Government has pointed to no evidence that any
alien from any of the countries named in the Order has
perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.
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.
We disagree, as explained
above.
On Harm:
The Government suggests that the Executive Orders
discretionary waiver provisions are a sufficient safety valve
for those who would suffer unnecessarily, but it has offered
no explanation for how these provisions would function in
practice: how would the national interest be determined,
who would make that determination, and when? Moreover,
as we have explained above, the Government has not
otherwise explained how the Executive Order could
realistically be administered only in parts such that the
injuries listed above would be avoided.
This is about to get really interesting. . . .
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
edited to add link to full opinion
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Recommended.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)In the legal world, a lot of this opinion constitutes "smackdown" language. I am beyond impressed by the aggressiveness of this opinion.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Almost like a reality television series at this point.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)Also known as the 25th amendment?
Stay tuned for scenes from our next episode. . . .
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I cannot wait for the next chapter of Trump vs. reality.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)As it is, it is scarier every day.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)That's what happens when you adopt your legal arguments from dumbass sovereign citizen websites.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)Trump should fire whoever had the crayon box to write such an unsupported document that virtually guaranteed the court would get involved. Thanks to the crackerjack genius attorney, or whoever the dunce was that wrote the EO and made Trump look like an idiot... yet again. Keep up the good work.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)That is likely who he will blame- the lawyers that did not argue well enough to overturn this "ridiculous" ruling.
FWIW, I think they did the best they could with the case they had. There's a reason Sally Yates refused to defend this. . . .
procon
(15,805 posts)From what Sally Yates said, I had the impression they were deliberately kept out of the loop as were many of the other agencies that would have normally been brought in to vet the EO and keep it as airtight as possible to prevent the sort of slap down that just happened.
I could be wrong, but Trump has played all these EOs close to the vest, and it just smacks of something the bumbling brown nosers he's surrounded himself with would churn out. I'm just curious, if not Bannon, maybe it was his henchman, Stephen Miller.