It appears that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued another idiotic ruling that temporarily affects the Trump Administration’s Executive Order on immigration restrictions from seven countries with terrorist activity and/or no government or civil infrastructure to adequately vet immigrants.
How wrong can the Court’s ideologues be?
The court overlooks the President’s unique powers to conduct foreign policy – with Congress playing a subordinate role in the formation of treaties and the confirmation of Ambassadors and other high officials.
To assert that a state has the standing to bring an action against the President because some immigrants might become university students, professors, or researchers and a denial of entry materially hurts the state is plain wrong. There has been no provable harm against any individual or institution, hence no standing to bring a legal action.
“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.” <Source>
To assert that the judiciary has the constitutional authority and power to judicially review all of the President’s actions, especially as it applies to presidential plenary powers is plain wrong.
“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.” <Source>
To extend constitutional “due process rights” to non-citizens and those beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and who reside in foreign lands is not only plain wrong but a clear and present danger to America’s safety and security. Visa applications who have a relationship with a U.S. resident, even if illegal, or an institution is to create a legal nightmare of unbelievable proportions.
Even if the claims based on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents were no longer part of this case, the States would continue to have potential claims regarding possible due process rights of other persons who are in the United States, even if unlawfully, see Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 693; non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart, see Landon, 459 U.S. 33-34; refugees, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note 8; and applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kleindienst v. Mandel,408 U.S. 753, 762-65 (1972). <Source>
And, worst of all, the Court’s three-clown panel did not cite, explain, or even address the statute under which presidential authority is claimed. The words, “by proclamation” indicated that the President’s actions in this matter are not judicially reviewable. Coupled with the Constitution’s unambiguous assignment of foreign affairs to the President of the United States, we have a dangerous overstepping of the Separation of Powers.
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
(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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
There is no provision for judicial review of the President’s decisions in matters of national defense or the safety and security of America. To grant these rights to the judiciary would be to empower one rogue judge with the ability to stop the Commander-in-Chief from executing their sworn duties. You did not hear similar objections by the progressive socialist democrats when this power was invoked by former presidents Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. Therefore, precedent does exist but was not addressed.
Bottom line …
This is a ruling, albeit temporary in nature, that must be reviewed and overturned by the United States Supreme Court. The fact that the government’s attorneys were ill-prepared and generally incompetent to put forth a cogent defense of presidential privilege, will regrettable, is another proximate cause of this legal abomination. The court was not presented with conclusive evidence that immigrants from the banned countries pose a danger even though a list of terrorists from these areas does exist.
Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from 'Trump 7' mostly Muslim countries
Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with an observation from an appeals court that there is "no evidence" those countries have produced a terrorist. According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens. <Source>
It is time to call for a 5th Amendment Convention of the States to redress the judicial tyranny – in which a relatively few unelected judges can override both the legislative and executive branch of the government – that has given a number of activist judges unprecedented and unconstitutional powers never contemplated by the Framers of the United States Constitution. The idea that a few hyper-partisans judge could imperil the safety and security of the United States is both ludicrous and dangerous,
I find it the height of progressive hypocrisy that judges and others would hold Trump accountable for his campaign statements when the mainstream media invented "campaign mode" to cover up the many lies of Barack Obama.
We are so screwed.
Reference Links …
- Published Order Denying Stay
- Unpublished Procedural Order
- Appellees' Notice of filing additional evidence in district court
Daniel Escamilla Amicus Motion
Daniel Escamilla Amicus Brief
Redfin Corporation Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- MongoDB, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- DiCentral Corporation Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- Listen to audio recording of Oral Arguments
- GoDaddy, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- OneLogin, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- Technology Start-Ups Joinder to Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- Medidata Solutions, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- Participating Law Firms of the Employment Law Alliance Amicus motion and brief
- Order re CNN live stream and recording of oral argument
- David Golden Motion to Intervene
- SpotHero, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and District of Columbia, Amended Amicus Motion and Brief
- SoundCloud, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- Molecule Software, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- Fitbit, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- Postmates Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- District court scheduling order on preliminary injunction
- Day sheet: Party and Counsel Listing for Telephonic Hearing
- Akamai Technologies, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- CREDO Mobile, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- Quantcast Corp. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- American Immigration Council Exhibits
- American Immigration Council Amicus Motion and Brief
- Jewish Federation Amicus Motion and Brief
- Link to oral argument live stream
- Order clarifying live streaming oral argument
- Freedom Watch Amicus Motion
- Order re live streaming argument
- Freedom Watch Amicus Brief
- Muslim Advocates Amicus Motion and Brief
- Anti-Defamation League Motion for Extension of Time
- Anti-Defamation League Amicus Motion
- Groupon Letter Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
- Reply In Support of Emergency Motion for Stay
- Washington State Labor Council Amicus Motion and Brief
- U.S. Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Public Advocate of the United States, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center Amicus Motion and Brief
- Additional Law Professors Amicus Motion and Brief
- National Immigrant Justice Center and ASISTA Amicus Motion and Brief
- Letter by Additional Technology Companies Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
- American Center for Law and Justice Amicus Motion and Brief
- Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Vermont Amicus Motion and Brief
- Pivotal Software Letter Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
- SEIU Amicus Motion and Brief
- HIAS, Inc. Amicus Motion
- Law Professors Motion to Substitute Corrected Amicus Motion and Brief
- Anti-Defamation League Amicus Brief
- Constitutional Scholars Amicus Motion and Brief
- Order denying motion to intervene and setting oral argument
- Reply in support of emergency motion for stay
- Exhibits to response
- Exhibit A to response
- Response to emergency motion for stay
HIAS amicus brief
- Americans United for Separation of Church and State amicus motion and brief
- ACLU amicus motion and brief
- Law Professors amicus motion and brief
- State of Hawaii Emergency motion to intervene and Exhibits
- Korematsu Center amicus motion and brief
- Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
- Revised scheduling order
- Order denying immediate administrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for stay and setting schedule
- Emergency motion for stay
- Video recording of hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
- Order Temporary Restraining Order
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius