Posted on 02/05/2017 4:55:15 PM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
In a major blow to the ACLU, a federal judge in Boston refused to extend an order which temporarily put a stop to a portion of Trump’s controversial “extreme vetting” immigration order. Judge Nathaniel Gorton, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, decided not to renew the temporary restraining order which was set to expire on Sunday. This ruling is significant because it is the first time that the Trump administration has scored a victory after a series of orders nationwide slamming the ban.
The ACLU argued that the Executive Order violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution because it favors Christians over Muslims. However, the judge found that nothing in the order “compels a finding that Christians are preferred to any other group.”
In addition, he found the plaintiffs lacked standing. “Plaintiffs are not, however, refugees seeking admission to the United States and consequently, any future implementation of Section 5 (b) would not personally affect them,” the judge wrote.
Judge Gorton found that while the Fifth Amendment protects “invidious discrimination by the Federal government” against aliens, there is a difference between the constitutional rights enjoyed by non-citizens who have entered the U.S. and those outside of it.
“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,” the judge wrote (citations omitted). In other words, the President has the right to make immigration decisions, without interference from the courts.
The court’s previous temporary order, which has now been lifted, stopped the deportation not only of two college professors, but also ordered the government to stop blocking deportation of others “similarly situated.” The case is being handled by attorneys from the ACLU and was originally brought on behalf of Mazdak Pourabdollah Tootkaboni and Arghavan Louhghalam, Iranian nationals and associate professors at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth. They are both lawful permanent residents of the United States. The case was amended to include five other Iranian nationals and Oxfam America. The judge found that in light of the Trump administration’s statement that the order was not intended to apply to lawful permanent residents, the claims for injunctive relief by the professors are now moot.
This is breaking news. LawNewz will update accordingly.
Arghavan Louhghalam et al v. Trump 5
Uploaded by LawNewz
https://www.scribd.com/document/338353094/Arghavan-Louhghalam-et-al-v-Trump-5#from_embed
Well, it’s obvious in its face that it doesn’t discriminate against muslims.
So why are we abiding by the Seattle judge who clearly is doing this for political reasons?
Tell that to the 9th Circuit.
"Election have consequences" anyone?
Tell that to the 9th Circuit
Oh come on ,the 9th Circuit have to consult with Master Soros before they do anything
This happened BEFORE the judge in WASHINGTON State ordered the 90 day hold.
This happened BEFORE the judge in WASHINGTON State ordered the 90 day hold.
Good flippin' question.
And what gives a Seattle federal judge jurisdiction over DC?
I posted this to post case transcript
Planned admissions of refugees to U.S. for fiscal year 2017
is 110,000
The temporary ban for 120 days ending May 27th does not affect American citizens:
The order didn’t affect immigrants from the seven countries who had U.S. citizenship and travelled with their American passports.
Green card holders: In the ban’s initial days, there was much confusion over whether citizens of the seven countries with documents proving U.S. permanent residency – widely known as “green cards” – would be barred or not. Border officials detained several green-card holders at airports, but after public outcry over the executive order, the White House and Homeland Security changed tack, saying permanent residents could still cross the border. But the order also gave border officials broad powers to screen and question visitors, and Mr. Kelly, the Homeland Security chief, said permanent residency would be a “dispositive factor in our case-by-case determination.”
We can discriminate against any group we want to. They aren’t protected under the constitution.
I’m curious id the 120 hold will begin AFTER 90 day hold?
My question too. A Seattle judge overrules the President about immigration law , and then states his ruling is for the country!!!
IT DOESN”T MATTER!!!!!Non citizens do not have any right to be treated equally or fairly. They are not CITIZENS.
ACLU is big on “Critical Law” from “Critical Legal Studies” which course every aspiring attorney is required to take. CLS is a course in how to use the Law to destroy the whole concept of Law and convert the legal system into the Rules of the Case system.
They understand fully.
Out of 100 cases filed, they’ll get five idiots that don’t know the laws of the land.
Then they score.
I hope his judge has some kind of deterrent consequence for making a ruling not based on law but politics.
LawNewz is garbage, IMO.
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.