Posted on 02/05/2017 12:58:56 AM PST by Steelfish
Appeals Court Denies Justice Department's Motion to Lift Travel Ban Restraining Order By DEAN SCHABNER DAVID CAPLAN Feb 5, 2017 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit announced early Sunday morning that it has denied the Department of Justice's emergency motion -- filed late Saturday -- to issue an immediate stay on a Washington State judge's temporary restraining order of President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban.
"The court has received appellants' emergency motion (Docket Entry No. 14)," read the order from the appeals court. "Appellants' request for an immediate administrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."
Lawyers from Washington State and Minnesota, who brought the challenge to court in Seattle, have until Sunday at 11:59 p.m. Pacific Time to file a response to the Department of Justice's request. The Justice Department then has until Monday 3 p.m. Pacific Time to file a reply brief.
Lawyers for the Department of Justice argued in the filing that the restraining order is "vastly overboard," and it "second-guesses" the commander in chief.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
“What if the decision is 4-4 ?”
We do not want this case to hit the USSC until Gorsuch is seated.
The strategy of the admin must be appeal to the full 9th Circuit, which often takes months. But in this case, probably a few weeks.
And Mitch the Pussy should start hearing on Gorsuch fir thing Monday in prep for the nuke option.
You really could have left that little dig out of your post.
I'd rather see the leadership of the DHS ignore the fantastical ruling of this insane judge, and tell their people to continue observing the lawful, constitutional orders of the Commander In Chief.
***Please don’t fall for the Media Trap. The Judges only denied the emergency stay. Period. THE FULL HEARING is scheduled for tomorrow. DON’t let the MEDIA mislead you.***
If you don’t think Soros has enough money and wielded enough influence to try and stop the Immigration EO through the courts then I think you may be very naive. Trump and his team in the DOJ and DHS better be thinking of a way around the tyrannical dictator Judges.
He gave this judge standing when he went to court. Big mistake in my opinion. This EO was already found to be lawful. It’s already established law that the President can decide matters of Immigration. By bowing to this Judge, the Trump Administration have given this judge power the bastard doesn’t have. We did not elect him President. We didn’t even elect him to be a Judge, and yet he is RIGHT NOW ruling this country!
Agree, Trump let the Judge run this when he went to court. This was the left’s plan run it through the 9th so now he’s stuck playing in their way.
1. Unnecessary and duplicative, because POTUS' authority in the area of immigration is already well grounded and supported by the Constitution and existing statute law.
2. Does not fully confront and solve the problem of judicial tyranny. Lawless judges will simply continue to render bogus rulings based on feelings, politics, and left wing idealism.
In my view, the President should have stood firm on his well established authority in this matter, and told the pinko circuit court judge to pound sand. By appealing the ruling, the President is effectively asking the judicial branch for permission to be president.
It's a bad move, in my opinion.
You are exactly right. It’s time for massive counter protests. I suspect this is not happening is because conservatives are at work building the country.
And by that times 60,000 visa holders would have arrived and another 50,000 granted refugee status. None of them would leave the country. Multiply that number by 5 given the soaring birthrate of Muslims
I thought that’s what he was going to do initially in response to such an obvious overstep/abuse of power.
DOJ argues that Washington State has standing to sue under a doctrine called parens pastriae.
Standing Under Parens Patriae
In Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) Puerto Rico contended that Puerto Rican workers that were employed in the apple farming industry were subject to working conditions more burdensome than those established for temporary foreign (migrant) workers, and by improperly terminating employment of Puerto Rican workers certain corporations had violated provisions of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and implementing regulations. The lower district court had ruled that Puerto Rico lacked standing. A U.S. Court of Appeals revered this ruled. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that Puerto Rico did in fact have standing under the parens patriae doctrine.
The Court ruled that a State must be more than “a nominal party without a real interest of its own.” The State “must assert an injury to what has been characterized as a ‘quasi-sovereign’ interest.”
This can include the “health and wellbeing — both physical and economic of its residents in general” but can also include “a similar state interest in securing residents from the harmful effects of discrimination” in order to “ensur[e] that the State and its residents are not excluded from the benefits that are to flow from participation in the federal system.”
The Supreme Court in finding standing for Puerto Rico, held that even while not a state, because of its “state interest in securing residents from the harmful effects of discrimination.” Puerto Rico’s residents were found to often suffer from invidious discrimination. The Court found that if there were invidious discrimination as to states across state lines, “we have no doubt that a State could seek, in the federal courts, to protect its residents from such discrimination to the extent that it violates federal law.”
Alternatively, the Court explained that Puerto Rico has parens patriae standing to pursue its residents’ interests in the Commonwealth’s full and equal participation in the federal employment service scheme established by the laws involved here.
Using this precedent, the Court in State of Washington v. Donald Trump that temporarily suspended the travel ban for those extended visas to travel to the United States found standing on the part of the States on the basis that “[t]he executive order adversely affects the States’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of their roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders.”
This ruling was based on Washington’s claim that it has an interest in the functioning and missions of their institutions of higher learning, as well as “operations, tax bases, and public funds.”
But Washington is not claiming that its citizens or residents are being harmed by being denied participation in a federal program. While the use of sworn affidavits from Microsoft, universities, etc., may establish a generalized harm, this is not enough to confer standing. The harm must be concrete and particularized. Washington cannot do so.
The Appeals Court in deciding on the merits is almost certain to reverse this decision on he basis that Plaintiff- Washington State-lacks standing here.
No need to get DHS staff in the middle of a legal-political battle. They can do everything laid out in that EO under the authority they had before the EO was issued.
But they could have granted a stay of the lower court order pending a ruling on the merits. This they did not.
You are missing the point. The 9th Cir panel could have issued a stay of the lower court ruling pending a full hearing on the merits. The gravitation pull of the law on issues of national interest and immigration is on the president’s side.
Check this out
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1402_e29g.pdf
I don’t think this was a bad move. It takes on a whole different flavor when you consIder that the whole purpose of the legal moves by the Trump team is to force a battle to diminish the tyranny of the Federal courts. They were smart to pick a battle where most Americans are on Trump’s side.
This court would have allowed Nazis into the country during World War 2.
Washington State is in the Ninth Circuit....
I like it.
I'm pretty sure the President's objective in issuing the travel ban, was to protect the American people, and not to provoke a showdown with the left wingers in the judiciary.
Now that they've been 'triggered' by his wholly legal, constitutional actions, he's made a strategic blunder by throwing it back into their ballcourt to render further judgements against him.
The better response would have been to ignore the judge's illegal ruling, and hold his position in space. Instead, he's now asking the judicial branch for permission to be president.
It was filed in WA state just so it would go to the 9th circus, where the Leftist could depend on their friends there. It requires immediate appeal to the Supreme court.
Draining the swamp also includes the judiciary. These liberal judges are lagging legacy of the Obama administration.
We all knew this would not be easy. Frankly, I did not expect this EO to be challenged successfully, since the law and judicial precedent is pretty clear on the presidents authority to do this. Just like Obama did.
In the end the EO will stand.
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.