Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Travel Order…Again (Update)

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Travel Order…Again (Update)

Hawaii federal judge is again attempting to usurp executive power

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/897555267587461121

Hawaii has it out for Trump’s attempt to curb oft-exploited visas to the U.S. issued in well-established state sponsors of terror.

For the third time, a federal judge in Hawaii has approved a request for a temporary restraining order, putting Trump’s latest travel executive order on hold.

Trump’s third travel order was scheduled to take effect at midnight, Tuesday night. The latest TRO was requested by the State of Hawaii, a muslim cleric (go figure), two anonymous parties, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii.

Unlike the last two orders, the TRP on this third attempt is far less likely to be upheld during the appeal process. From the WaPo:

Legal analysts have said those challenging the latest travel ban face an uphill battle. The measure was only put into effect after an extensive process in which the U.S. negotiated with other countries for information, and the list of countries affected now includes two countries that are not Muslim-majority: Venezuela and North Korea.

We’ve covered the travel order issue extensively through the course of this year. For our posts on the travel order/executive power fight, see here.

TRO opinion here:

Trump Third Travel Order Temporary Restraining Order Opinion by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

UPDATE by WAJ 7:45 p.m.: Thanks to Kemberlee for the quick cover on this, as I’ve been unavailable all day. I can’t say I’m surprised by the result, considering that the Judge involved here already has ruled against Trump. The problem in this decision, as it was in prior decisions by this and other lower courts, is that the Judge is substituting his evaluation of risk for that of the executive branch.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

4th armored div | October 17, 2017 at 3:25 pm

Trump/Sessions need to have an emergency order from SCOTUS to bar this judicial overreach and disbar the court that approved this travesty – separation of powers doncha know

4th armored div | October 17, 2017 at 3:27 pm

we are in the cusp of a civil war – the leftists will reap what they have sown……..

To borrow from Reagan, “There you go again.”

Obviously this judge has a personal animus. He knows he’s gonna get shot down again, but doesn’t care.

They should have listened to Barney Fife. ” You’ve got to nip it! Nip it in the bud!” They didn’t. The upside? Judicial overreach so blatant and nakedly partisan there will be push-back. It is clear there are some Federal Judges that are blatant, lefty, hacks.

They are pushing this way beyond frustratingly ridiculous.
It needs to stop. NOW.

This is judicial insurrection. Break up the 9th Circuit.

If these judges are so damn hot to be president and make federal immigration policies themselves, they need to quit their jobs as federal district court judges and run. But until they actually succeed in winning the presidency, they need to knock off this crap of pretending that they are entitled to substitute their own judgment for the judgment of a president that they and their lefty buddies think is icky.

Called it. There is literally NO TEXT Trump could possibly produce that would not be struck down by a progressive piece of shit in a robe.

Seriously. At what point should judges be removed for blatantly ignoring what actual law says.

    snopercod in reply to Olinser. | October 17, 2017 at 7:07 pm

    We’ve passed the point when that rogue judge should be removed, but that would require a congress with gumption.

I’m looking on with envy… where the eff was the GOP with these types of contests against Obamacare? It took freaking forever and it was one and done (it’s a tax) for each issue.

I’m going to acknowledge the adversary for being hella good at what they do.

I wish my dog would bite like that.

could we please stop with the BS apostrophe in Hawaii?

that’s the PC way to write it, and we should NOT cede the language and vocabulary to them.

    Kemberlee Kaye in reply to redc1c4. | October 17, 2017 at 4:29 pm

    I grew up in southeast Asia and this is how I’ve always spelled it. Has nothing to do with political correctness.

regulus arcturus | October 17, 2017 at 4:25 pm

Could someone extremely well versed in appellate procedure explain how this is possible?

Please also explain why the SC is standing idly by allowing this behavior to continue.

    Why would it not be possible? The president has issued an order, the plaintiffs believe it to be illegal, so they applied to a federal district court for an injunction pending a hearing on the matter. What could be more normal?

    The case over the previous order became moot when the order expired, so it was never decided on.

Roberts has to step in here and stop this crap! The SCOTUS is the only entity that can put a stop to this nonsense. Next, some low-level judge will decide that some other policy is now his domain and declare it unconstitutional. There is a law about executive power and for some reason, none of the lower courts seem to have read it.

    Milhouse in reply to inspectorudy. | October 18, 2017 at 12:51 am

    What law would that be?

    You had no objection when a district judge in Texas enjoined DAPA, did you?

      regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | October 18, 2017 at 8:46 pm

      Because the order was based on previous orders, where the SC already ruled what was allowable and what was not.

      You are treating this as if there was an entirely new case here. It is not.

      This is the same case, and in fact the exact same judge who issued the prior injunction, I believe.

      That can’t procedurally be kosher, otherwise judges could just roadblock any issue they see fit, even issues out of their jurisdiction, such as immigration.

      Now, what needs to happen is for the SC to step in and settle the issue, including sanctioning this judge and likely the 9th Circus when they uphold his illegal move, otherwise this obstruction will continue ad infinitum.

      There is no judicial supremacy in the US. These judges believe otherwise.

        The SC hadn’t ruled. It had merely granted a temporary stay pending arguments. Once the original order became moot all of that went away, and we’re back where we were when the original order came out. The district court enjoins, the circuit upholds, the SC stays, and arguments are scheduled, presumably quicker than last time because most of the lawyers’ prep has been done.

        And this is in the jurisdiction of every federal judge, just as DAPA was, which is how that district judge in Texas got to enjoin it. Unless you protested that, you have no right to object this time.

          regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | October 19, 2017 at 12:19 pm

          The SC did rule per curiam that the majority of the ban was constitutional. That content is contained within this 3d iteration of the EO. They have not ruled on the full merits of the case, and must do so to put a stop to this obstructionism.

          No, federal immigration and national security is not the jurisdiction of any federal judge. Statute clearly defines presidential authority in this area.

          Challenge that statute, otherwise shut up (to the judges/litigants, not you Milhouse).

          David French agrees with me:

          Let’s deal with the worst first: Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling in Honolulu.

          Simply put, it’s 40 pages of judicial defiance. To understand the extent of Judge Watson’s malfeasance, one has to linger over the actual words of the governing statute:

          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.

          How does one get from there — a statute empowering the president to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” when he (not the court) finds their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States” — to a ruling stopping him from exercising exactly that power? When the judge decides it’s entirely up to him to evaluate the president’s reasoning according to the judge’s perception of American interests.

          Judge Watson then proceeded to ignore and contradict the previous SC per curiam directive –

          Once he decided that he disliked Trump’s new executive order as much as he disliked EO-1 and EO-2, Judge Watson acted like the Supreme Court didn’t exist. He went ahead and enjoined the travel ban not just for those who have — in the Supreme Court’s words — “bona fide relationships with a person or entity in the United States,” but rather extended his injunction to protect nationals of every majority-Muslim country on the list, regardless of their connection to the United States.

          More here –

          http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452860/trump-travel-ban-federal-district-court-judges-defy%20constitution-theodore-chuang-derrick-watson

You want to bring this to a head, really quickly?
Have Trump IGNORE the ruling, declaring it unlawful and biased. That will smoke out all the criminals who support this behavior.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Matt_SE. | October 17, 2017 at 11:57 pm

    Wouldn’t it also give the leftists the grounds for impeachment they so desperately want?

      Sure, but they wouldn’t have the numbers.

      And it’s about time a president put his foot down on ultra vires judges. This is the perfect issue to do it over, because it’s an area where the Supreme Court has said Congress has plenary power. Plenary means plenary, which as I read it means even if this were explicitly a ban on Moslems, motivated by explicit animus against Islam, it would still be lawful.

      If I were Trump I’d have responded to the first injunction against the first order by writing a letter to Roberts, informing him as a courtesy that one of the judges under his supervision has exceeded his authority, and that my administration intends to treat this purported injunction with the contempt it deserves.

Looking forward to reading the epic smackdown coming from the Supreme Court.

Judge is clearly a loon. He keeps referring to the 9th Circuit opinion as if it wasn’t immediately stayed by SCOTUS.

Surprise1 Surprise! Surprise!

As was foretold, a lower federal court has again overstepped its boundaries. Now, this case uses the same arguments against EO3, that were used against EO1 & EO2. We all saw this coming.

The first thing that the Administration should do is to ignore this TRO, on the grounds that the lower court has no jurisdiction in the matter. It should direct the State of Hawaii, et al, to file for an injunction with the court of original jurisdiction for all disputes between a state and the federal government, the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS chooses to issue a TRO, then a full hearing can be scheduled on the matter by the beginning of the year. Put the SCOTUS on the spot. A hearing on these same arguments, with regard to the power of the President in the area of immigration, was already scheduled fo a hearing, before the SCOTUS, this month. It should have been held anyway, as long as any EO regarding immigration restrictions existed. There is absolutely NO reason for this nation to have to wait another 4 months to get this situation clarified.

    alaskabob in reply to Mac45. | October 17, 2017 at 7:10 pm

    Once smacked down, is there any recourse to remove this “judge” from the bench? Should be a “three strikes and out” clause somewhere.

    Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | October 18, 2017 at 1:04 am

    It should have been held anyway, as long as any EO regarding immigration restrictions existed.

    It couldn’t be, because there was no case. Courts have no authority to do anything without an active case before them.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | October 18, 2017 at 10:58 am

      This is not accurate. When Roe was no longer pregnant, and Roe v Wade had not yet been heard by the SCOTUS, the Court deemed the issue important enough and the likelihood of future challenges sufficient to warrant hearing the case even though it was technically moot, at that point. This case is no different. The only reason that the SCOTUS did not deal with the previous case, was that they did not want to get involved. Even their initial review of the original TROs were “compromises”.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | October 19, 2017 at 4:30 am

        The exception the court claimed in Roe was that if the strict rule of mootness were to be applied then no case regarding a pregnancy could ever get through the appellate process.

        But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid. Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be “capable of repetition, yet evading review.

        That is manifestly not the case here. The current order has no expiry date, and there’s no reason to suppose it won’t be current long enough for an appeal to be heard. Thus the normal rule applies, and the court had no constitutional authority to hear the case.

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | October 19, 2017 at 1:14 pm

          Than you for making my point for me. In Roe, once Roe was no longer pregnant, the Texas ban on abortion no long applied to her. The case was moot. This was exactly the same argument that the SCOTUS used in the cases surrounding EO1 and EO2. They no longer applied. However, just as with Roe v Wade, Trump, by stating that he would impose another, permanent EO covering the same points as EO1 and EO2, made it clear that this would be an ongoing situation. Yet, rather than simply wait for the legal challenges to start and lump everything together, keeping to the same schedule already existing, they declared the issue, as addressed with reference to EO1 and EO2 to be moot. What this means is that all the legal opinions presented during those cases disappears. And everything is reset to point zero. In Roe, it was likely that a future challenges would be raised with regard to abortion law, most likely in Texas, and there is no reason why the SCOTUS could not have heard that future case within a few days of filing.

          Now, as to the SCOTUS hearing an appeal. This is ridiculous. As a state is one of the parties to this suit, as well as to the previous one, and it concerns a dispute between a state and the federal government, the SCOTUS should hear the case directly, as it is the court of original jurisdiction. Technically, all actions should should be brought before the SCOTUS and any orders should all originate there. The lower courts have no authority to handle this case, under the Constitution.

Time to bust up the 9th!

“two anonymous parties,”

Would their names happen to be Barry and Michelle?

Wait. Didn’t the USSC just dismiss the prior case because it was now moot (the case was with respect to the temporary ban, not the permanent ban). But instead of just dismissing it as moot, it issued an opinion (8-1) saying that the lower courts were wrong and had wrongly decided the case.

Why are we here again??

DHS needs to stay on it’s current path until it has time to review the order. That should take several months until the Supreme’s can again rule.

Who wants to be the judge didn’t even read this one, lol.

Bitterlyclinging | October 18, 2017 at 8:00 am

On orders out of Kalorama, of course. Must have happened during one of those two daily conference calls intended to thwart President Donald J Trump’s attempt to enforce the Constitution.

Reminder: Al Smith, after his 1928 election loss to Herbert Hoover moved in a few doors down from the New York State Legislature in Albany figuring he could still run New York State in his spare time through FDR whom Smith considered a political lightweight.

Whatever ex president, in American history has attempted to directly confront his successor in such a manner

Managing immigration by nation – what an extraordinary concept! Oh, wait a minute…that’s what we’ve been doing for the past 90 years. It was all good then; but now that Trump is President, we need to upend everything he does regardless of what went before.

From the Collected Sayings of the Left: “That was then; this is now.”

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend