Posted on 02/10/2017 3:57:26 PM PST by jazusamo
A judge on a San Francisco-based appeals court has requested that the entire court vote on whether to review a three-judge panel’s decision to not reinstate President Donald Trump’s travel ban.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit instructed the administration and the plaintiffs, Washington and Minnesota, to file legal briefs by next Thursday with their opinions about whether the ruling should be reviewed “en banc.”
That process would task the entire 11-judge appeals court at the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case. The three-judge panel unanimously declined to lift a temporary restraining order on Trump’s executive order on immigration and refugees on Thursday evening.
The news comes as the White House has said it would likely not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court or have it reviewed en banc, and instead said it would fight for the controversial policy in a lower district court in Seattle. But White House chief of staff Reince Priebus subsequently said that the administration is still considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Trump also told reporters on Friday that he is considering signing a “brand new order” on immigration and refugees. Reworking the ban to be narrower could give it a better chance of holding up in court.
The three-judge panel that heard the case this week included Judges William C. Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee; Richard R. Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee; and Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee.
The judge who requested the vote on whether to review the ruling is unknown.
“Given the idiocy and weakness of the 3 judge panel, a Supreme court decision could easily be 8-0. I suspect one 9th Ct. judge wants to save the court from further embarrassment. In no way would they want to dig a deeper hole, would they ?”
Makes sense. I was to see a Mack Truck rammed through this activist 3 panel court.....but I am not holding my breath.
In addition to standing, the 3 judge panel bought in on the trial judge's conclusion that unspecified financial loss and temporary inconvenience equated to irrevocable loss. Most importantly, he asserted, without evidence, and they accepted that the states were likely to win the case at trial. When the case is actually heard and real evidence is presented by real trial lawyers, it is going to be obvious that this matter should have never been allowed to reach this point.
You may be quite right.
I still feel Pres Trump will want to defend his case before the very judge that improperly and with no stated legal reasons stayed his exec order. Robard made no arguments that Pres Trump did not have the authority to issues his order. He only stated his feelings and beliefs with no legal reasons at all.
So why go back? To list with clarity the authority invested in the president by prior SC rulings and by the Congress themselves that codified the SC rulings into law in 1952, a law that is still current. Then, if Robart continues to rule for his stay he will have to list his actual legal reasons - of which he has none, I feel.
With such a faulty ruling in hand the President, if he chooses, can then appeal it to the SC and it should be a certain win. And all this occurs very high profile proceedings so the country gets a lesson in the law instead of the balderdash being peddled by the leftists and the media.
That’s how I see it. They actually want to get Robart “on the record” so to speak from a legal standpoint.
No, Congress has the authority to organize the courts under Article III of the Constitution.
9th circut proxy doing it to save their own butts, don’t get split up or somehow impeached or disbarred.
I\Yes, if they get into standing in any meaningful way the Justice lawyers should surely win those arguments as well. Both the standing of MN and WA and also the lack of standing of Robart himself to rule in matters of national security and foreign affairs.
Since this Circuit has a record of 80% of their rulings overturned upon appeal, it seems that Congress should compile a list of all the judges in the Circuit who consistently ruled inappropriately. These judges should be impeached and removed from office.
The Circuit should then be broken up.
New Executive order blocking all immigration.
Then second order providing immigration with extreme vetting for those who claim persecution at the hands of Muslim Extremist.
I think legislating from the bench should be made into a prosecutable felony.
A judge has exactly one function, apply existing law.
As far as I am concerned, anything beyond that is a violation of the civil rights of every citizen in this country.
These judges are not accountable to us.
HOW DARE they presume the power legislate our safety.
I have read that an en banc panel would consist of 11 randomly chosen judges of the 9th Circuit. I am always suspect of the “randomness” of the choosing.
It would help is the Republicans didn't let the Democrats make it a requirement for Federal Court seats....
"Critics of the Ninth Circuit claim there are several adverse consequences of its large size.[10] Chief among these is the Ninth Circuit's unique rules concerning the composition of an en banc court.
In other circuits, en banc courts are composed of all active circuit judges, plus (depending on the rules of the particular court) any senior judges who took part in the original panel decision.
By contrast, in the Ninth Circuit it is impractical for 29 or more judges to take part in a single oral argument and deliberate on a decision en masse. The court thus provides for a “limited en banc review of a randomly selected 11 judge panel.
This means that en banc reviews may not actually reflect the views of the majority of the court and indeed may not include any of the three judges involved in the decision being reviewed in the first place.
You are right. See my post 93
I wonder how they choose the “random” 11? Think they draw numbers out of a hat?
What is going on tonight???
I don’t know. I got a winning super bowl square that way lol. Perhaps Pres Trump would be as lucky :) Hopefully, luckier.
Separating the EO into individual countries does a few important things.
Would force separate lawsuits for each EO making it more difficult to get a single judge that again puts all on hold.
Dilutes the argument that it’s a Muslim ban.
Forces state AG’s to argue that they are irreparably harmed on a country by country basis.
I think it’s also helpful to make a clear distinction that the new EO’s are entirely different from the current EO.
Ok, that makes sense. Especially diluting the Muslim ban theory. Thanks.
I think most of the responses are misreading this: I think the judge requesting this wants the full 9th Circus to slap down Pres. Trump. And it would. This is a trap. The better move is rescind this EO and issue a new one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.