The Brethren Hammering Immigration Ban Case Study
Headline: Checkpoint: Impact of The Brethren’s Hammering Immigration Ban
The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pounded the brethren’s gavel last Thursday against the Republican administration’s assimilation ban of immigrants and refugees from seven predominantly Muslim nations on the administration’s list of terror-sponsoring states.
The three judges of the San-Francisco-based Ninth Circuit, among the most liberal in the nation, struck down the administration’s appeal to immediately restore the presidential executive order imposing the controversial travel ban. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-trump-travel-ban-2017-htmlstory.html
The appeal arose from US District Judge James Robart in Seattle granting …show more content…
an emergency temporary restraining order from enforcement of the administration’s sweeping executive order as causing “irreparable injury” from blocking citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia, for 90 days. The order also suspends new-refugees admissions for 120 days, and bans Syrian refugees indefinitely. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-trump-travel-ban-2017-htmlstory.html
With the stroke of the president’s pen, the immediate hardship of the executive order stranded thousands of travelers at US airports -- mostly resulting in detention of Iranians -- whose nation of origin since has been test-firing missiles in retaliation of the travel ban and in violation of the spirit an international arms control treaty, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015) (“JCPOA”). http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/Iran/irandeal.pdf On another front, the American travel industry also has been hard hit by the travel ban with estimated losses over $185 million. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/travel-ban-hurting-airlines-u-051500949.html In conjunction with the US Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the administration recently imposed international economic sanctions targeting Iran for contributing to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20170203.aspx The Department of Treasury published the names of 25 individuals and entities from Iran, Lebanon. China, Bosnia, and United Emirates last week. The administration claims its sanctions conform with the terms of the JCPOA. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC Enforcement/Pages/20170203.aspx
Most striking, uninterrupted travel continues of nationals from Saudi Arabia, United Emirates, and Egypt with possible links to the president’s vast business empire.
However, more than a dozen nationals from these countries have shown up repeatedly in terror attacks from coast-to-coast including San Bernadino, Boston, Orlando, and New York. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi citizen, and his top deputies, including the current leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were Egyptian.
Case Brief: Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court and Other Statutory Options
Following the issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s denial of the government’s appeal, US President Donald Trump thundered on Twitter about swift justice in the courts which was interpreted by legal pundits as seeking an appeal to the US Supreme Court to grant the writ of certiorari for expedited review of the order of the Ninth Circuit similar to the truncated appellate process in the Panama Papers case.
The curve ball of an appeal to the US Supreme Court for the administration involves the possibility of a split decision (4-4) among the justices which results in affirmance of the lower court. However, bypassing the intricacies of the appellate process, the White House this weekend also indicated exploring other available options, including issuing a new executive order with slight modifications to overcome anticipated legal
hurdles.
Should the administration preserve its right to appeal, the writ may be granted because the Court has the authority to review executive action and federal constitutional issues: “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.”
Previous presidential administrations have waged immigrant battles with the judiciary before and have prevailed to curtail immigration from hostile foreign states as a security measure framed as a counterterrorism strategy. Jimmy Carter instructed his administration to “invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today and required Iranian students to register with immigration officials.” The D.C. federal appellate court upheld the action, stating, “Distinctions on the basis of nationality may be drawn in the immigration field by the Congress or the Executive. So long as such distinctions are not wholly irrational they must be sustained.” [Emphasis added].
DOJ can argue that its distinction based on nationality is not “wholly irrational,” since it temporarily halts immigration from citizens of seven countries designated by the Obama Administration as ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program due to terrorism concerns and citing the escalating conflict with the Iranian missile crisis bearing close resemblance to the Kennedy administration-era sanctions.
However, the one big difference between the two immigration orders may be the public response. Carter had much more goodwill as a retired nuclear submarine captain with almost unanimous public support behind Carter’s restrictions in Iranian visas than non-military Trump and his top advisor, Steve Bannon, whose controversial appointment to the National Security Council has roiled many wartime military veterans and political opponents.
Radical Patriots’ Call to ‘Clip the Court’s Wings’ – US Constitution Article III Section 2
From the right, former Tea Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan steamed at the Ninth Circuit in disagreement of the power of the sovereign to restriction assimilation of non-natives who were not born in this country: "That a district judge would overrule the president of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is absurd.” The Court stated that evidence is lacking to support national security concerns to maintain the travel ban. Buchanan assails the Ninth Circuit on the basis of national security concerns to prevent acts of terror on American soil. "When politicians don black robes and seize powers they do not have, they should be called out for what they are – usurpers and petty tyrants. And if there is a cause upon which the populist right should unite, it is that elected representatives and executives make the laws and rule the nation. Not judges, and not justices.” http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-must-break-judicial-power-126521
Likewise, famed law professor Allen Dershowitz observed that the Ninth Circuit ruling was “[n]ot a solid decision and “[l]ooks like it’s based more on policy than on constitutionality.” Dershowitz added, “I think this court opinion will not ultimately be sustained by the Supreme Court." http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/09/dershowitz-9th-circuit-ruling-not-a-solid-decision-looks-like-its-based-more-on-policy-than-on-constitutionality/
Judge Andrew Napolitano lambasted the Ninth Circuit for blocking the administration’s executive order, calling the ruling “an intellectually dishonest piece of work” because it “consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president.”
Although not specifically cited in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, a statute signed into law in 1952 permits the President to restrict or suspend the immigration of any class or classes of people into the United States for reasons of public health or national security: “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.” 8 U.S. Code § 1182
“The statute specifically says the president on his own, by proclamation, meaning he doesn’t have to consult with anybody else, can make the decision,” Napolitano said immediately after the court’s ruling. “The decision to ban is not reviewable. Judges are incapable of second-guessing the president on it. For that reason, he may be thinking the Supreme Court is going to invalidate it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqtA7aCuuM
The disputed opinion also advances the Ninth Circuit’s novel and unsupported extension of standing to states on behalf of people who are neither residents nor citizens of those states, or of any state. The corollary unprecedented act was saying due process rights extend to foreigners in foreign lands. Also, the opinion barely addresses references to leading case authority and wraps in a per curiam opinion cine no particular author wishes to be associated with this decision.
Federal Judge Nathaniel Gorton of the District Court of Massachusetts analyzed the relevant statute, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f), and concluded that the executive order is fully within the president’s authority: “The decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute’ realized through the legislative and executive branches that is ‘largely immune from judicial control.’” Contrary to the Ninth Circuit, Gorton says the executive order is “facially legitimate and bona fide.”
George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley also suggested the merits of the law favored the Trump administration, noting the arguments made by the Trump Justice Department mirrored those made by the Obama administration when it imposed its own immigration restrictions.
“Well, it was a poorly crafted executive order, and it was a terrible rollout,” he said during an appearance on MSNBC. “But I still think that the law favors the administration once you get to the merits. I don’t agree with many of those, some of those cases. But the courts have been highly deferential to the president, and they generally don’t second-guess.”
“I think the people also have to acknowledge that the Trump administration here is making virtually the identical argument to the Obama administration.”
The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pounded the brethren’s gavel last Thursday against the Republican administration’s assimilation ban of immigrants and refugees from seven predominantly Muslim nations on the administration’s list of terror-sponsoring states.
The three judges of the San-Francisco-based Ninth Circuit, among the most liberal in the nation, struck down the administration’s appeal to immediately restore the presidential executive order imposing the controversial travel ban. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-trump-travel-ban-2017-htmlstory.html
The appeal arose from US District Judge James Robart in Seattle granting …show more content…
an emergency temporary restraining order from enforcement of the administration’s sweeping executive order as causing “irreparable injury” from blocking citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia, for 90 days. The order also suspends new-refugees admissions for 120 days, and bans Syrian refugees indefinitely. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-trump-travel-ban-2017-htmlstory.html
With the stroke of the president’s pen, the immediate hardship of the executive order stranded thousands of travelers at US airports -- mostly resulting in detention of Iranians -- whose nation of origin since has been test-firing missiles in retaliation of the travel ban and in violation of the spirit an international arms control treaty, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015) (“JCPOA”). http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/Iran/irandeal.pdf On another front, the American travel industry also has been hard hit by the travel ban with estimated losses over $185 million. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/travel-ban-hurting-airlines-u-051500949.html In conjunction with the US Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the administration recently imposed international economic sanctions targeting Iran for contributing to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20170203.aspx The Department of Treasury published the names of 25 individuals and entities from Iran, Lebanon. China, Bosnia, and United Emirates last week. The administration claims its sanctions conform with the terms of the JCPOA. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC Enforcement/Pages/20170203.aspx
Most striking, uninterrupted travel continues of nationals from Saudi Arabia, United Emirates, and Egypt with possible links to the president’s vast business empire.
However, more than a dozen nationals from these countries have shown up repeatedly in terror attacks from coast-to-coast including San Bernadino, Boston, Orlando, and New York. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi citizen, and his top deputies, including the current leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were Egyptian.
Case Brief: Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court and Other Statutory Options
Following the issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s denial of the government’s appeal, US President Donald Trump thundered on Twitter about swift justice in the courts which was interpreted by legal pundits as seeking an appeal to the US Supreme Court to grant the writ of certiorari for expedited review of the order of the Ninth Circuit similar to the truncated appellate process in the Panama Papers case.
The curve ball of an appeal to the US Supreme Court for the administration involves the possibility of a split decision (4-4) among the justices which results in affirmance of the lower court. However, bypassing the intricacies of the appellate process, the White House this weekend also indicated exploring other available options, including issuing a new executive order with slight modifications to overcome anticipated legal
hurdles.
Should the administration preserve its right to appeal, the writ may be granted because the Court has the authority to review executive action and federal constitutional issues: “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.”
Previous presidential administrations have waged immigrant battles with the judiciary before and have prevailed to curtail immigration from hostile foreign states as a security measure framed as a counterterrorism strategy. Jimmy Carter instructed his administration to “invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today and required Iranian students to register with immigration officials.” The D.C. federal appellate court upheld the action, stating, “Distinctions on the basis of nationality may be drawn in the immigration field by the Congress or the Executive. So long as such distinctions are not wholly irrational they must be sustained.” [Emphasis added].
DOJ can argue that its distinction based on nationality is not “wholly irrational,” since it temporarily halts immigration from citizens of seven countries designated by the Obama Administration as ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program due to terrorism concerns and citing the escalating conflict with the Iranian missile crisis bearing close resemblance to the Kennedy administration-era sanctions.
However, the one big difference between the two immigration orders may be the public response. Carter had much more goodwill as a retired nuclear submarine captain with almost unanimous public support behind Carter’s restrictions in Iranian visas than non-military Trump and his top advisor, Steve Bannon, whose controversial appointment to the National Security Council has roiled many wartime military veterans and political opponents.
Radical Patriots’ Call to ‘Clip the Court’s Wings’ – US Constitution Article III Section 2
From the right, former Tea Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan steamed at the Ninth Circuit in disagreement of the power of the sovereign to restriction assimilation of non-natives who were not born in this country: "That a district judge would overrule the president of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is absurd.” The Court stated that evidence is lacking to support national security concerns to maintain the travel ban. Buchanan assails the Ninth Circuit on the basis of national security concerns to prevent acts of terror on American soil. "When politicians don black robes and seize powers they do not have, they should be called out for what they are – usurpers and petty tyrants. And if there is a cause upon which the populist right should unite, it is that elected representatives and executives make the laws and rule the nation. Not judges, and not justices.” http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-must-break-judicial-power-126521
Likewise, famed law professor Allen Dershowitz observed that the Ninth Circuit ruling was “[n]ot a solid decision and “[l]ooks like it’s based more on policy than on constitutionality.” Dershowitz added, “I think this court opinion will not ultimately be sustained by the Supreme Court." http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/09/dershowitz-9th-circuit-ruling-not-a-solid-decision-looks-like-its-based-more-on-policy-than-on-constitutionality/
Judge Andrew Napolitano lambasted the Ninth Circuit for blocking the administration’s executive order, calling the ruling “an intellectually dishonest piece of work” because it “consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president.”
Although not specifically cited in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, a statute signed into law in 1952 permits the President to restrict or suspend the immigration of any class or classes of people into the United States for reasons of public health or national security: “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.” 8 U.S. Code § 1182
“The statute specifically says the president on his own, by proclamation, meaning he doesn’t have to consult with anybody else, can make the decision,” Napolitano said immediately after the court’s ruling. “The decision to ban is not reviewable. Judges are incapable of second-guessing the president on it. For that reason, he may be thinking the Supreme Court is going to invalidate it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqtA7aCuuM
The disputed opinion also advances the Ninth Circuit’s novel and unsupported extension of standing to states on behalf of people who are neither residents nor citizens of those states, or of any state. The corollary unprecedented act was saying due process rights extend to foreigners in foreign lands. Also, the opinion barely addresses references to leading case authority and wraps in a per curiam opinion cine no particular author wishes to be associated with this decision.
Federal Judge Nathaniel Gorton of the District Court of Massachusetts analyzed the relevant statute, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f), and concluded that the executive order is fully within the president’s authority: “The decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute’ realized through the legislative and executive branches that is ‘largely immune from judicial control.’” Contrary to the Ninth Circuit, Gorton says the executive order is “facially legitimate and bona fide.”
George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley also suggested the merits of the law favored the Trump administration, noting the arguments made by the Trump Justice Department mirrored those made by the Obama administration when it imposed its own immigration restrictions.
“Well, it was a poorly crafted executive order, and it was a terrible rollout,” he said during an appearance on MSNBC. “But I still think that the law favors the administration once you get to the merits. I don’t agree with many of those, some of those cases. But the courts have been highly deferential to the president, and they generally don’t second-guess.”
“I think the people also have to acknowledge that the Trump administration here is making virtually the identical argument to the Obama administration.”