Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

9th Circuit allows most of Trump Travel Order No. 3 to go into effect

9th Circuit allows most of Trump Travel Order No. 3 to go into effect

Hawaii District Court injunction stayed except to persons with a “close familial relationship” in the U.S.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-surprises-first-batch-white-house-visitors-n730111

The District Court in Hawaii recently granted yet another injunction against a Trump Travel Order, in that case Travel Order No. 3. In light of prior Supreme Court stays of similar injunctions, the Hawaii District Court Order was plainly ridiculous. I noted at the time:

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.

Even the 9th Circuit seems to think so, as it just issued a Stay (pdf.) of most of the District Court injunction:

The Government’s motion for an emergency stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction pending hearing and resolution of the expedited appeal is granted in part and denied in part. The preliminary injunction is stayed except as to “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” as set out below. Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project (“IRAP”), 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2088 (2017); see also Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35 (2009).

The injunction remains in force as to foreign nationals who have a “close familial relationship” with a person in the United States. IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at 2088. Such persons include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins. See Hawaii v. Trump, 871 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir. 2017). “As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [Proclamation 9645].” IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at 2088.

MOTION GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

There still is a Maryland District Court injunction, but that should not survive any more than the Hawaii injunction.

These District Court judges are acting like the litigation in the Supreme Court never took place. While it’s true that SCOTUS never ruled on the merits, the fact that it issued stays of lower court injunctions and scheduled the case on the merits (later dismissed as moot) should have been a message to all but the most tone deaf lower Court judges how to handle subsequent litigation. The 9th Circuit appears to have gotten the message, at least in part.

9th Circuit Trump Travel Order – 11-13-2107 by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

… and cousins.

Thus rendering the decision worthless.

The Ninth says Hawaii can’t arbitrarily substitute its own evaluation in place of the Executive’s … and then proceeds to do exactly the same thing.

    Cannot upvote this enough. State has a definition of what a ‘close relationship’ is for immigration purposes. This ruling rolls right over that.

    Besides, ‘cousins’ is a vague enough relationship that it covers about everybody applying to enter the US.

Here come the Supremes

Time for congress to impeach the clowns who are ruling this way!

They are a true threat to the federal court system.

More “resist” nonsense from federal judges.

    Tom Servo in reply to Common Sense. | November 13, 2017 at 8:40 pm

    Why would Congress impeach a judge for ruling in the way that most of Congress wants him to rule?

    We have an open borders judiciary, and an open borders Congress. Quelle Surprise.

    We’re having enough trouble getting rid of mcconnell and ryan.

    On the other hand, we are the GOP base – the GOPe has NO base. Once we vote enough GOPe rats out and replace them with patriots, then we might be able to execute your idea.

Paul In Sweden | November 13, 2017 at 2:27 pm

The ruling means that prior to any applicant receiving a Visa, aside from undergoing extreme vetting themselves, each of their grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins must also undergo extreme vetting. Failure to list accurately each and every close relative will be a violation of law and result in deportation and if necessary denaturalization.

There is no blank check to be given to Visa applicants.

    Sorry Paul, but that would only happen in a country where the Rule of Law was adhered to, not the USA.

    Here, “extreme vetting” means nothing at all. It’s just a rubberstamp; many of these people won’t ever even meet an immigration agent in person, and their background will remain unchecked.

This is a clever ploy, by the 9th, to keep the SCOTUS from hearing and ruling on the case. By crafting their stay to resemble that issued by the SCOTUS in re the previous EOs, they are attempting to short circuit any appeal by the Administration. If they had supported the district court, the case would have gone to the SCOTUS and more than likely, the SCOTUS would have reissued the same stay that they issued earlier. AND, it would have revived the case in the SCOTUS. The 9th wants to avoid that, if at all possible.

If I was the president, I think I would appeal any way. It is a nearly perfect vehicle to make a precedents.

This decision stays nothing. Keeping chain migration alive eviscerates Trump’s EO.

Just change the policy so no documents created by those governments can be used to enter the country and require an original birth certificate for all visitors.

I’m just going to leave this, here. It seems that Barack Obama publicly agreed with the DJT immigration policy,

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/7cut3m/whats_with_the_change_of_heart_obama/

https://streamable.com/9salq

The 9th wants to avoid that, if at all possible.
That’s it in a nutshell. They don’t want their incompetence exposed any more than what it is already.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend