I’d be interested in any specifics you can offer in response to what she’s written on it.
In the first place the opinion was written not by Kethledge but by Merritt. All three judges on the panel voted to reverse and did so because of a recent Supreme Court decision noting that the law requiring deportation was for "crimes of violence" and the SC has held on multiple times that this phrase is ambiguous and not well defined in law.
These three judges UPHELD THE LAW. Don't like the law, get Congress to pass a new one. And they did so applying the 2008 Decision of the SC which SCALIA WROTE. The judges here explained:
Justice Scalia recently explained in Santos that the rule of lenity prevents courts from having to "read the mind" of Congress and is a "venerable" requirement that the federal courts have applied for two centuries when interpreting ambiguous criminal statutes. When a criminal statute is ambiguous as to its intent, the "tie" goes to the defendant. Because we cannot find that auto theft is "unambiguously" a crime of violence under Section 16(b), we should follow the ancient rule and overrule the administrative agency in this case..
I don't know about vetting the various choices, but I have vetted Ann here and she is a liar. As an attorney should should know better as well.
Here is Ketchledges actual decision in PATEL v UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP ANDIMMIGRATION SERVICES
Here is what Ketledge wrote:
Patel filed suit in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the denial [of an employment petition] as arbitrary and capricious. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of prudential standing. We reverse.
IOW the district court held that Patel did not have standing to seek judicial review of an administrative decision by USCIS. Kethledge holds that Patel does have standing to seek judicial review.
As Kethledge wrote: in enacting the Administrative Procedure Act, Congress intended to “make agency action presumptively reviewable.” ... Thus, a plaintiff lacks prudential standing only if his “interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.”
...[excerpting a lot more well-written argument] Kethledge concludes:
Disembodied notions of statutory purpose cannot override what the statute actually says. What § 1153(b)(3) says is that the alien, ultimately, is the one who is entitled to the employment visa. The alien’s interest in receiving it is therefore within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statute. Patel has prudential standing to challenge the denial of his prospective employer’s petition for an employment visa.
Of course the Administrative State would like for its determinations not to be judicially reviewable. But that is tyranny. This is a blow for rule of law, not open boarders laissez faire immigration like Anne and Breitbart claim.