State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

[Peter1469]

State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

This website provides links to all of the filings in the Trump EO case - the first one. The last filing, as of this date, is an extraordinary filing where the 5 minority judges blast the decision and the denial of en banc review.

15 March 2017, p. 4:

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.

This sort of filing- after the decision is unheard of. I concur with the dissent.

The footnote 1 referred to above is:

1 Our personal views are of no consequence. I note this only to emphasizethat I have written this dissent to defend an important constitutional principle—thatthe political branches, informed by foreign affairs and national securityconsiderations, control immigration subject to limited judicial review—and not todefend the administration’s policy.

[Peter1469]

The new decision by Hawaii is even more egregious. The judge does not look at the EO, or the statute at issue. He looks at the campaign speeches made during the election. The court substituted its judgement on national security matters with the executive and legislative branches' judgement.

That is not how American law works.

The "logic" used in Hawaii can't enjoin the President from invading and waging war against a nation that is predominantly Muslim.

[Peter1469]

Here is an article that attacks the judge in Hawaii.

A Federal Judge in Hawaii Upsets the Constitutional Order to Defy Trump

To protect the feelings of some residents, a court unconstitutionally strips power from Congress and the president.

The judge ignored separation of powers and violated his oath as a judge.

The unfolding series of judicial decisions blocking the Trump administration’s past and present temporary travel bans — especially the ruling handed down last night in Hawaii — if upheld by courts of appeal or the Supreme Court, would risk fatally undermining our nation’s constitutional national-security structure and our national sovereignty, and could extend and magnify our military conflicts abroad. To understand why and how, you have to know the meaning of one word: “standing.”

To simplify a rather complex legal doctrine: Rules on “standing” mean that not just anybody can waltz into federal court and challenge government actions. To maintain an action, you must demonstrate that you have suffered a violation of a recognized right. To use the lingo of the courts, you must show that your injuries are “concrete and particularized.”

****

Unless this case is overturned, the short-term effect, ironically enough, will be to incentivize more conflict overseas. If more-strict immigration restrictions are now constitutionally suspect in the face of our enemies’ religious war, then it starts to remove an important tool from the president and Congress’s national-security toolkit. Unable to lock down the border, yet still facing the obligation to protect American life, a president’s options would be more limited, and the need to strike abroad (or to control ground abroad) would be all the greater.

Read the entire article.