I regret that we did not decide to reconsider this case en banc for the purposeof vacating the panel’s opinion. We have an obligation to correct our own errors,particularly when those errors so confound Supreme Court and Ninth Circuitprecedent that neither we nor our district courts will know what law to apply in thefuture.
The Executive Order of January 27, 2017, suspending the entry of certainaliens, was authorized by statute, and presidents have frequently exercised thatauthority through executive orders and presidential proclamations. Whatever we,as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order,1 thePresident’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency, and “[t]hewisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for ourconsideration.” Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 165 (1993).
This is not to say that presidential immigration policy concerning the entry ofaliens at the border is immune from judicial review, only that our review is limitedby Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)—and the panel held that limitationinapplicable. I dissent from our failure to correct the panel’s manifest error.