This Was Quite An Interesting Decision.....

[Laxman]

for the mere denial of a motion. A relatively dry procedural matter where, as the Court stated, finding of fact would be left for a full litigation of the matter, they nonetheless found a way to call out the so-called President. First establishing that a claim of "national security" does not give the President carte blanche...

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.

they go on to make some findings of fact, without actually making findings of fact....so in opining that a meritorious claim of constitutional violations was likely present they gave credence to the claim that this was indeed a "ban on Muslims". They basically said we know the order doesn't say you're banning Muslims, but we know what you said, and we're pretty sure you intended this as a ban on Muslims from these 7 countries. They then dismissed the administration's claims that they knew something the Court didn't about why this was important.....

the Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated.

...this in spite of the fact that the Court gave the administration every opportunity to present evidence about why the security of the nation was at stake and they declined. They made a point of stating this.

Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.

So without making a finding of fact, the Court actually made some findings of fact....

1. Despite what you said, this was in fact a ban on Muslim immigration
2. That a ban like that violates the Constitution
3. That this was going to harm an identifiable group of people and
4. That the claims of a threat to national security were bullshit (that's a technical legal term)

This makes me believe that the Courts will be willing to stand up to the so-called President and that the "so-called judge" remark will be a tweet he will come to regret. Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, the judges are going to have each other's backs. They know the integrity of our system depends upon it. I hope I am reading that tendency correctly.

[rzemanfl]

1. K&R. I think you are reading the judiciary (at least the vast majority of them) correctly. n/t

[Skittles]

2. "....do not automatically trump"

[Laxman]

3. I Was Going To Mention That....

could that have been a mere coincidental use of language? I sure hope not!

[world wide wally]

4. LoL. So, Ghouliani's carefully crafted EO was as full of unconstitutional bullshit as 45's was

[Cha]

10. Which was the opposite of what he was asked

to do, right?

[world wide wally]

14. Ghouliani and his crack team of lawyers were supposed to make it fit the law

And they probably made a good buck off it too.
They could have just turned it over to a group of deplorables at a flag shop.

[Cha]

15. Hallelujah for rudy's arrogance and bravado.. wonder if blotus will

be hiring his services in the future?

[Laxman]

17. Let's Hope Giuliani Keeps....

"helping them out". I've got a great idea Donald, if we just don't mention the word Muslim, nobody will catch on...brilliant isn't it?

[Lucinda]

5. TY KNR

[herding cats]

6. They made it clear for the SC what they thought, without actually saying it.

It was a brilliant decision on their parts.

Also, I expect this to be sent back to the 9th for further review before the SC decides it's ready for their their eyes. But, I could be mistaken on that, it just feels like the 9th seems to feel they need more evidence from the White House to fully flesh out the case, which he WH didn't provide.

[JudyM]

7. My favorite part was when they basically said that um, no, it's basic Constitutional law that the

president can't just decide to deprive people of fundamental rights and not be subject to judicial review. As if even 1st semester law students don't know this.

And of course, where they acknowledged that even folks here illegally have Constitutional rights. As well as calling bullshit on the administration's trying to claim it wasn't a Muslim ban like he campaigned on over and over.

It's a great read, cleanly constructed and to the point.

[il_lilac]

8. k&r

Great news!

[pnwmom]

9. I also like this footnote buried on p. 27.

It makes we wonder what Government lawyer thought they could get away with this.

In addition, the Government asserts that, “unlike 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).

[2naSalit]

11. Who thought they could get away with this

would be the incompetent trainees in the WH. their paint-by-number attempts at rulership is turning out to not be as much of a slam dunk as they imagined.

[Stonepounder]

13. Oooohhhh, that's gonna leave a mark!

Trump went and send one of those really, really 'bad high school students' that he thought would get the judges to rule in his favor.

[Laxman]

16. Just A Transparrent Lie...

coming from a 'shoot from the hip" administration. These are dangerous people with nothing to constrain them except the courts. I'd add public opinion to that but I don't think they care....and they are clearly living in their own reality.

[True Dough]

12. There's a great tweet from Billy Eichner

"I'm pretty sure Trump thinks the next court this goes to will be The People's Court."

It's so absurd, yet possible that Don the Con could actually conceive of something like that!

[Buckeyeblue]

18. Sounds like it's an all or nothing proposition

For my own understanding, without a compelling state interest to to ban all Muslims, 45 would have to ban everyone, right? Someone should tell him that. He might do it in the wrong frame of mind....then we could sit back and watch the end of his presidency.