Refugees

Why the 9th Circuit Refused to Reinstate Trump's Travel Ban

The appeals court thinks many people affected by the executive order have plausible due process claims.

|

White House

In refusing to overturn the temporary restraining order against President Trump's travel ban, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit emphasized an argument that has received relatively little attention in coverage of the case. Washington and Minnesota, which brought the lawsuit that resulted in the TRO, say many of the people covered by the ban have a right to due process that the government has not even pretended to respect. The 9th Circuit thinks the states have a good shot at proving that claim. It concludes that "the Government has not demonstrated that the States lack viable claims based on the due process rights of persons who will suffer injuries to protected interests due to the Executive Order."

In addition to suspending the admission of refugees for 120 days, Trump's order imposes a 90-day ban on travelers from seven overwhelmingly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Washington and Minnesota argue that the order impermissibly discriminates against Muslims, a claim that has generated much public debate. The 9th Circuit thinks "the States' claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions," and it rejects the government's position that judges weighing those questions should pay no attention to public statements made by Trump and his advisers. But the appeals court devotes nearly three times as much space to the due process argument.

The 9th Circuit notes that the ability to re-enter the country after going abroad, or to travel in anticipation of that ability, is a "liberty interest" protected by the Fifth Amendment. Yet "the Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual's ability to travel." In fact, "the Government does not contend that the Executive Order provides for such process," since "the Government argues that most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause."

The appeals court was not persuaded by that argument. Foreign nationals who are outside the United States and have never lived there, such as would-be visitors applying for visas or refugees seeking permission to resettle in the U.S., cannot assert due process rights. But according to the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit notes, "The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they 'appl[y] to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens,' regardless of 'whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.' These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad."

In the 1982 case Landon v. Placencia, for example, the Supreme Court held that a lawful permanent resident had a right to due process when the Immigration and Naturalization Service tried to stop her from returning to the United States after "a brief visit to Mexico that involved an attempt to smuggle aliens across the border." The Trump administration initially said the travel ban applied to lawful permanent residents. Then it issued a blanket waiver saying their entry is "in the national interest." The administration's latest position, laid out in a February 1 memo from White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II, is that the order never applied to lawful permanent residents.

The 9th Circuit rejected that assurance, questioning McGahn's authority to revise Trump's order or to require that other government officials adhere to his interpretation. "Moreover," it says, "in light of the Government's shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings."

In any case, the appeals court says, green-card holders are not the only people affected by the order with potential due process claims. They also include "non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart" (such as foreign nationals working in the U.S. or attending American universities) and "applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert" (such as relatives of citizens or scholars hired by American universities). Even refugees could make due process claims under 18 USC 1231 if they seek asylum after arriving in the United States.

"The Government has provided no affirmative argument showing that the States' procedural due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens," the 9th Circuit says. "For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States. Nor has the Government established that the Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry."

Assuming that some people affected by the order have a right to due process, it is not clear what it would entail. The only potential relief provided by the order comes from discretionary, case-by-case waivers "in the national interest." The 9th Circuit suggests that due process would at least require "notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual's ability to travel," and presumably the hearing would do more than verify that the individual comes from one of the banned countries.

The Trump administration asked the appeals court, if it was not prepared to block the TRO entirely, to narrow its scope so that it covers only "previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future." That category would include many of the people with potential due process claims, the 9th Circuit notes, but not all of them, since it omits "aliens who are in the United States unlawfully," who "have due process rights as well," and "citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens' ability to travel to the United States."

Rather than seek a narrower TRO, Trump could rewrite his order to focus on unvetted foreign nationals who have never visited the U.S., which would address most of the due process concerns while bolstering the credibility of his claim that he is trying to protect Americans from terrorists. "Even if the TRO might be overbroad in some respects," the 9th Circuit says, "it is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order. The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions."

NEXT: Friday Funnies: Trump on Putin

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Because they are commie left wingers who don’t want America to be Great?

    1. Due Process?

      Asset forfeiture.

      http://classicalvalues.com/201…..he-people/

      Right up there with the missing Drug Prohibition Amendment.

  2. the credibility of his claim that he is trying to protect Americans from terrorists

    LOL

  3. Washington and Minnesota argue that the order impermissibly discriminates against Muslims, a claim that has generated much public debate.

    “Most folks from Indonesia are welcome. I rest my case.”

    1. It’s not a very convincing argument no wonder it lost.

      1. “Oh, apparently you’re a ‘visual thinker’. Please consider this simple Venn diagram.”

    2. Sure was clever of Muslims to chase out or kill all non-muslims from their countries. Now they get special court protection.

  4. Abolish the 9th

    1. Why not just abolish all courts that make rulings we don’t like.

      Just install Trump as emperor how about.

      Would you like that?

      1. The 9th is a lawless court, making decisions based on preferred outcome. They’re not anchored to the constitution in any way. This decision was no different. And their overturn rate is proof.

        They deserve to be abolished.

      2. Why not just abolish all courts that make rulings that contradict the Constitution

        FTFY

  5. So we do not need to repeal the ACA, since there were public statements that the fine was not a tax, and if it was not a tax, the law is unconstitutional per the Supreme court. And there was no severability clause.

    1. Have you seen the latest ACA commercial where it calls the payment for non compliance a penalty?

  6. Wow, one of the most liberal, and most reversed courts made an ass-tastic decision.

    Shocked, I am.

    1. 80% of their decisions get reversed.

      Apparently that is good enough for government work.

      1. You’ve misrepresented the facts. Here they are as I understand them.

        Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the (a conservative majority) Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association. The 9th Circuit, which is known for its liberal tendencies, has the second-highest reversal rate of the 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court.

        1. I’m not seeing how I misrepresented anything. Especially considering that “Reverse” and “Vacate” are basically the same thing. Reverse is extremely wrong, vacate is just wrong. 8 out of 10 is 80% is it not?

          http://www.americanbar.org/con…..eckdam.pdf

          Sure, the Federal Circuit is extremely wrong slightly more often, but even they are not as wrong as often as the 9th

        2. The Supreme Court does not yet have a ‘conservative majority’ and most certainly did not in 2010.

          It was split 4/4 with Kennedy as a swing vote until Scalia died.

          What facts were misstated?

          8 out of 10 reversed is 80% reversed.

          1. Math is hard!

  7. It’s a clusterfuck. Trump’s EO clearly falls within the power granted to him by the law but it was too hasty and clumsy. He gave them an opening and they took it. I expect the SC to rule in his favor but hopefully he will proceed with a bit more caution from here out.

    1. Violating people’s due process rights does not clearly fall within the power granted to the president by law, and if it did, that law would be unconstitutional.

      There may be one glaring exception here, and that’s the AUMF. The AUMF was cited by the Obama administration as a justification for their mass surveillance program and ignoring the Fourth Amendment rights of 350 million Americans, and if the AUMF hasn’t yet been cited by the Trump administration as a justification for ignoring people’s due process rights, then I’m sure it soon will be.

      For goodness’ sake, isn’t it time to sunset the AUMF already?

      1. “Violating people’s due process rights does not clearly fall within the power granted to the president by law, and if it did, that law would be unconstitutional.”

        Sure it does. We still have asset forfeiture don’t we?

      2. Violating people’s due process rights does not clearly fall within the power granted to the president by law, and if it did, that law would be unconstitutional.

        The Due Process clause protects persons against being “deprived of life, liberty, or property”. Keeping non-citizens outside the country does none of those things.

  8. Correct me if I’m wrong:

    So basically the court is claiming that the President has not provided sufficient evidence that they are a national security threat?

    Therefore, they are claiming the President can do what he did, but only if the court agrees with him?

    Also, the court is claiming that our legal system has jurisdiction over aliens not currently in the US, or at our borders?

    1. Also, the court is claiming that our legal system has jurisdiction over aliens not currently in the US, or at our borders?

      No. The court is claiming jurisdiction over the presidency.

      There have been some pundits arguing that aliens outside the country do not have rights under the US Constitution. Some of these pundits claim to be constitutionalists. Why then do they conveniently forget that the constitution does not grant rights but defines the limits of the government’s authority?

      While it is expressly constitutional (control over immigration was enumerated to congress and congress gave it by statute to the executive to administer), the question of whether the government is acting outside its enumerated authority can be brought to the court.

      1. Okay, makes sense.

        I still do not see where he overstepped authority, but then again, I’m not a lawyer.

        1. Neither is the 9th circuit apparently.

          1. Whereas everyone on this comments section clearly is. Dose darn judges, comin’ ‘ere wit der communism ‘nd der witchcraft!

      2. How does one coequal branch have jurisdiction over another coequal branch, unless specified in the constitution?

        1. Are you asserting that the president should be free to do unconstitutional things without judicial review?

        2. The Constitution was written explicitly to set just that process up. To make ambition counter ambition. Every one of the three branches has means of legally blocking the actions of the other two in one form or another.

        3. The Anti-Federalists argued, putting it simply, that the judicial branch has power over the other branches and could stop what they are doing, so they are not co-equal branches. I know about the amendment process but amendments are rare.

      3. Americans may or may not defend those rights in other countries as they choose.

        In the US it is (supposed to be) not optional.

      4. There have been some pundits arguing that aliens outside the country do not have rights under the US Constitution. Some of these pundits claim to be constitutionalists. Why then do they conveniently forget that the constitution does not grant rights but defines the limits of the government’s authority?

        Yes: the Constitution gives the executive branch the power to defend the sovereignty of the United States; keeping non-citizens outside the country is certainly part of that power.

  9. “For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States. Nor has the Government established that the Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry.”

    The court is getting that part absolutely correct.

    Setting the rules for naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress, and those foreign nationals who obtained green cards by following the rules that Congress set have due process rights. When Trump unilaterally declared their visas invalid despite them having followed the rules of naturalization set by Congress, he violated their due process rights.

    The problem is that the Trump administration is likely to prevail on the other aspects of the executive order. Trump is probably okay, constitutionally, in suspending new visas from being issued to asylum seekers from countries where anti-American terrorism is a big problem commensurate with his powers as Commander-in-chief, and, rightly or wrongly, the Trump administration is likely to prevail on giving preferential treatment to persecuted minorities.

    The TRO should have been limited to the questions surrounding those who already have visas and green cards.

    1. rightly or wrongly, the Trump administration is likely to prevail on giving preferential treatment to persecuted minorities

      That’s the most interesting question. Let’s assume Trump intends to discriminate against Muslims entirely because of his bigoted hatred of their religion. Is that constitutional?

      1. The question of whether Islam is hateful aside, no, discriminating against any religion reeks of establishment, and that is specifically prohibited by the First Amendment.

        Oh, and and even if Islam were hateful, Muslims’ religious rights are still protected by the First Amendment anyway–just like the First Amendment doesn’t only protect messages of peace and love, it also protects hateful speech, too.

        1. Muslim rights of Free Speech should be respected.

          Especially in Saudi Arabia.

        2. The question of whether Islam is hateful aside, no, discriminating against any religion reeks of establishment, and that is specifically prohibited by the First Amendment.

          What religion does keeping members of a violent religious cult outside the US establish?

          Neither does it interfere with the free exercise of religion of people under US jurisdiction.

          So, no, not a First Amendment issue.

      2. How about not assuming things?

        How about trying that?

        Try taking the EO as written, rather than reading things into it.

        As written Trump’s ‘hatred’ seems reserved for terrorism and persecution of minorities. Hating such things is not a bad thing.

        See how pleasant reality is, when lunatic assumptions are allowed to fall by the wayside?

        1. Then why not target the countries whose people have actually killed Americans? Countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Lebanon, Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan. None of them are on the list.

          1. Are they a source of asylum seekers?

  10. As far as I know, the clear wording of the law Trump quotes says the President has the authority to ban any foreigners he wants from coming in, but later amendments to that particular chapter added bits about non-discrimination which may or may not apply to the particular section Trump quoted. Additionally, there’s the bit about the Constitutionality of “any foreigner he wants” since green card holders and other legal immigrants certainly have due process rights. The government has discretion in who they award privileges to, but having granted the privilege the awardee has a vested interest in that privilege. (Which is why it’s so damn hard to kick people off welfare if they don’t want to go – there’s far more lawyers volunteering as welfare rights activists than there are ones volunteering for indigent defense.)

    1. The problem is that whether or not the later amendments applied to the presidential authority clause seems to hinge on “legislative intent”, which is only to be invoked in case of ambiguity in the law which makes their intent unclear. Generally, SCOTUS is pretty damn clear that if the law doesn’t mention something it intentionally doesn’t mention something, failure to mention it doesn’t suggest that maybe they just forgot about it and there’s some ambiguity about it. (The relevant section doesn’t say anything about whether or not I can have a bologna sandwich for lunch, does that mean there’s some ambiguity in the law since Congress didn’t say one way or the other whether or not I could?) And as one of the judges brought up, the “no religious discrimination” amendment that the plaintiffs are bringing up also prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality which seems to lead to the absurdity of suggesting the president can’t issue a blanket ban on immigration from countries we’re currently at war with.

      So I think that “banning all Muslims” is in fact legal, banning green card holders and other legal immigrants without giving them the right to appeal is not, banning the issuing of any new travel visas is legal, revoking existing travel visas is somewhat dubious.

      1. Or pretty much what Ken “Oh look at me! I can type with more than one finger!” Shultz said.

    2. but later amendments to that particular chapter added bits about non-discrimination which may or may not apply to the particular section Trump quoted

      Those sections talk about allocation of immigrant visas, not travel restrictions.

  11. Why doesn’t the administration just put out a new EO that says no new visas from problematic countries will be issued from today until 90 days from now?

    Hell, just keep putting out some ridiculous EO every day that gets the left wing lawyers going fucking insane for lulz.

    1. That would be a simple fix, but the problem is Trump is like a kangaroo, he can’t back up. He issued the order late on a Friday afternoon when he knew the frontline troops wouldn’t be able to reach any higher-ups to ask for clarification and direction on the order – which suggests he knew damn well there were some questions going to be raised about the order and he didn’t want anybody raising them. Then when the question about due process was raised he claimed he did so have authority to stop green card holders so go to hell, then he said including green card holders was a mistake and never mind, cross those guys off the banned list, then he claimed the order never applied to green card holders in the first place and it was only those idiots at TSA and ICE that stupidly thought it did.

      See? Trump is never wrong, and he’ll call anybody a dumb loser poopy-head that says otherwise. Issuing a new EO would be an admission that just maybe the first one had a teeny-tiny flaw in it – and Trump obviously is far more interested in defending his original EO no matter how long it takes and regardless of how many terrorists might slip into the country in the meantime because there’s no unambiguously-issued EO stopping them. Trump is more interested in defending Trump than he is in defending America.

      1. Correct on all points. However, if it had been Obama’s EO the media would have described it as bureaucratic mis communication that inconvenienced a handful of travelers. It would never have been challenged in federal court. The story would probably be below the fold on page 36 of the NYT. Just sayin.

    2. Why doesn’t the administration just put out a new EO that says no new visas from problematic countries will be issued from today until 90 days from now?

      The courts already issued an injunction against that part of the original EO. If Trump were to issue a new EO with the same provision, the courts–even ones that might not agree with the original injunction–would almost certainly strike it down immediately. He risks a constitutional crisis if he just keeps issuing the same enjoined order over and over again.

  12. Jacob, shouldn’t we explained to the nonlawyers the nature of this proceeding and just how absurd it is?

    The trial judge entered a temporary restraining order. This is an emergency order intended to keep everything in status quo until the court has The ability to convene a hearing on a preliminary injunction. It is a short term order to essentially keep everything in place until the court can figure out exactly what is going on. As the ninth circuit pointed out, it is rare that an appellate court ever reviews a temporary restraining order because of their extremely short ? term nature.

    For some reason, Trump did not ask the Ninth Circuit to reverse the temporary restraining order or to find that the trial judge had committed legal error. Instead, he asked that the temporary restraining order be “stayed.” In effect, he asked for an emergency order asking that another emergency order not be enforced. Stays of a court order are very difficult to obtain even in the best of circumstances. In the context of this case, it required Trump to prove that he or the country would suffer irreparable harm if he was not permitted to impose irreparable harm on others. When you look at it this way, it is easy to see why the Ninth Circuit disagreed with him.

    This whole episode has been an embarrassment.

    1. permitted to impose irreparable harm on others

      Assumes facts not in evidence.

      1. That was the trial judge’s finding. I was characterizing the nature of the argument being made on appeal. Again, Trump did not argue that the trial judge should be reversed. He argued that the trial judge’s order should be “stayed.”

        1. Doesn’t make the “irreperable harm” anything but a fabrication of some lawyer’s imagination.

    2. Trump ordered a temporary halt to immigration just until we could figure out what the hell’s going on, the court granted a temporary halt to Trump’s order just until we could figure out what’s going on.

      We’ve been operating under these visa-issuing rules for a long time, what’s the emergency that we suddenly gotta change the rules RIGHT NOW! OR WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE! like Trump claims? There’s an easily-availed process you can go through to change the rules – what’s the big deal with using the regular rules-changing process?

      1. What is the “easily-availed” “regular” rules-changing process, exactly?

        1. Trump said we need to put an immediate temporary halt to all these immigrants “until we can figure out what the hell’s going on”. What do you suppose “figuring out what the hell’s going on” entails and why can’t he figure out what the hell’s going on whether or not there’s a temporary ban on immigration? You call together a few intelligence bigwigs, people from ICE and TSA, some representatives from the relevant Senate and Congressional committees and you hash out what changes need to be made to the immigration policies and procedures. That’s the way things have always been done. We’ve been operating the entirety of Obama’s administration under Obama’s policies and procedures and somehow the Republic still stands – are we in imminent danger of annihilation if Trump sends out a memo that he wants a plan of action on his desk in 30 days just the same as he did with the memo to the Pentagon with regards to defeating ISIS?

          1. That… doesn’t answer my question. Are you saying that all changes to policy must go through Congress, even where Congress has said the President has the authority to change policy? Or are you saying that some agency/department–DHS I guess–must initiate the change to policy, even if the law says the President can do it of his own authority?

            1. Let’s incarcerate all the Japs (I mean Muslims). SCOTUS even called it Constitutional on the same basis of national security. Did that make it right to do? We were even already in a shooting war with Japan.

              I do not question the President’s authority to make changes in procedures for the issuing of new visas, including a short term pause in doing so. aside from the stupidity of pissing off people who thought they had reasons to trust us. Nothing in the Constitution requires that office holders be smart about what they do. But just wait until the next time we need help from locals and we’ll see more of the real cost of this order.

              However that’s not what he did. He retroactively denied the already issued visas and worse, at least initially, even denied the rights of people in the process of becoming citizens and already granted permanent residency status.

    3. if he was not permitted to impose irreparable harm on others

      Heaven forbid we should cause “irreparable harm” to Iraqis, Yemenis, or Syrians! That would be UNPRECEDENTED!

      Seriously, for eight years, Obama has been bombing and droning the shit out of these people, killing them by the thousands, destroying their governments and livelihoods, and turning their cities into rubble, and all of a sudden the 9th Circuit is concerned with causing these people “irreparable harm”? Who are those idiots?

  13. Huh. The courts care about due process. Huh.

    11 Americans were killed by drones while writing this message.

  14. There may be probable cause to believe Trump is in violation of 18 U.S. Code ? 201 – Bribery of public officials and witnesses. Let’s examine the law.

    The code article defines a public official as:

    (1)the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency or branch of Government.

    It appears plainly clear that the chief executive officer of the executive branch of government fits within this definition of public official.

    (b)Whoever?

    (2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

    (A)being influenced in the performance of any official act;

  15. This is also a great time to point out, once again, that requiring people to supply their social media passwords in order to come across our borders is a fundamental violation of people’s First Amendment rights.

    I know John sees the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment as the potential problems there, but government discrimination based on the content of people’s social media accounts is also a First Amendment issue.

    1. This is also a great time to point out, once again, that requiring people to supply their social media passwords in order to come across our borders is a fundamental violation of people’s First Amendment rights.

      Trump didn’t start this, this has been going on for years. And, no, the legal situation isn’t as simple as you imagine it to be.

  16. But according to the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit notes, “The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens.

    Funny how these assholes are now concerned about Due Process, considering they felt it was perfectly okay to drone the fuck out of anyone in the Middle East, including 8 American citizens (only 1 of whom was given a trial and that in absentia for Treason). The 9th Circus also held up the Obama Admin’s use of torture, so fuck them and their sudden concern for “Due Process”.

    If the SCOTUS overturns USC 18, maybe some good will come but I don’t got a minute buy these assholes (especially not the fucktard Washington AG) give a fuck about the Natural Right of Movement/Travel.

    1. Grrr….we need to be able to edit!

      “but I don’t for a minute….”

    2. It is to the Trump administration’s credit if they didn’t invoke the AUMF.

      1. That sort of thing is limited to Thomas Jefferson in his war against Islam.

  17. Here’s the thing that gripes my ass – we all know Hillary had that private server to hide what she was up to and it was a BFD in the campaign. We also bitch about Obama and the FISA thing where he essentially claimed he had a perfectly legal process for determining who he’s going to kill this week – but you’ll just have to trust him that it’s all perfectly legal because it’s Top Secret and if he tells you how it works, well then, he’s going to have to kill you.

    So here’s shitweasel Bannon deciding that rather than trying to hide the evidence of what’s going on, these top-level meetings are just not going to generate any written record at all and, hey presto, no possibility of having to deal with that pesky FOIA crap. Whether or not that violates any laws on transparency, it violates the hell out of the spirit of the law insofar as the spirit of the law is that the public has a right to know the law and how the law got made.

    I find it hard to believe that the discussion of issuing this EO didn’t include somebody with some knowledge of the law raising the issue of due process rights, and I’d also bet a fat dollar that the issue wasn’t dealt with with some sort of learned discussion of the Constitution and the law and various SCOTUS decisions, I’d bet it was dealt with with the argument of “fuck the Constitution, we’re in charge here now”. Which would kinda be a violation of the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

    1. It’s like when Bush signed that law that he actually said at the time he signed it he thought it was unconstitutional – that’s an impeachable offense right there if you ask me. You don’t just have the authority to veto unconstitutional bills, you have a DUTY to veto them. The reason a SCOTUS decision overturning a law on Constitutional grounds doesn’t result in immediate impeachment of every Senator and Congressman who voted for the bill and the President who signed it is you’ve got the mens rea argument – they thought it was Constitutional at the time. When you sit right there and say “yeah, I know it’s unconstitutional but so what if it is?”, you’ve just violated your oath of office, asshole.

      1. Also, if you remember, during the campaign there was a story about one of Trump’s lawyers in a deposition who referred to the other lawyer who was with him at the time he talked to Trump and he was asked why there was a second lawyer at this meeting with Trump. The guy kinda hemmed and hawed around a bit before admitting that they have a strict policy of always having a second witness taking notes at any meeting with Trump because Trump has a bad habit of “misremembering” what was said and done and agreed to in a meeting if it’s just your word against his. IOW – Trump’s own lawyers won’t take his word for anything because they know he’ll lie like a motherfucker if there’s no record of what he said. So these meetings he’s having now where there’s a strict policy of having no written record of what was said or done or agreed to? Yeah, he’s planning on lying like a motherfucker. Like when he said he actually argued that there should be a 30-day notice before issuing this EO and when “they” told him it was a bad idea because then you’re telling your enemies what you’re planning on doing he suggested well, then, maybe a week’s notice? Shouldn’t we give our people some sort of notice before we just spring this on them out of the blue? and “they” still insisted on not having any notice because otherwise the terrorists will know what you’re planning to do and they’ll change their plans accordingly, so Trump had to reluctantly accede to their demands.

        1. Now how many times during the campaign was Trump challenged to flesh out his campaign promise of quickly and easily defeating ISIS and he used that exact argument, it’s just astoundingly stupid to tell your enemy what your plans are ahead of time? And now we’re to believe he argued the exact opposite and it certainly wasn’t his fault this EO caused such a clusterfuck by being sprung on an unsuspecting workforce late on a Friday afternoon when there was no chance in hell they’d be able to get in touch with a higher-up to ask for clarification and guidance on the order? Bullshit – you did it that way because the enemy you’re wanting to surprise isn’t the terrorists, it’s your own employees. You’re paranoid as fuck from whatever pills it is you’re popping to stay awake and prepared to defend yourself from all your enemies who hate you because you’re so incredibly amazingly smart, rich, successful, good-looking, popular and have such a huge dick. You need to lay off the pills, Donald, and get some sleep. Not everybody is your enemy, these people are your employees, they’ll do what you tell them to do without you threatening and bullying and attacking them like they’re brain-eating zombie vampires from outer space. You need these people on your side if you want to keep out the bad hombres, why are you trying so hard to piss them off? Just because you’re an asshole and proud of it?

          1. Everything u said Is quite spot on….I salute you sir! ‘Merica!

        2. He didn’t lie, he’s just memory challenged. We have to make allowances for the mentally handicapped, don’t we?

      2. It’s like when Bush signed that law that he actually said at the time he signed it he thought it was unconstitutional – that’s an impeachable offense right there if you ask me

        Why would the Congress impeach the President for signing a bill that they sent to him? If they did impeach him, it would be entrapment.

        1. Refusal of Congress to impeach isn’t evidence that no impeachable offense occurred. It just means we need to recall the whole corrupt lot and put in representatives and senators willing to impeach and convict.

  18. The EO should have just been “stop issuing visas at 8 am Jan 30”. Could have avoided this whole mess.

    1. Well that would have been too similar to the EO by Obama with this same list of countries, and the Trump train supporters would have seen him as being soft if he didn’t just put his dick on the table. The wording of this order was too broad and that’s what got him in trouble in the first place. This is what happens when you surround yourself with people who know nothing of legal procedures or legal writing, you leave yourself open to scrutiny and loopholes for the opposition to hook onto.

      1. supporters would have seen him as being soft if he didn’t just put his dick on the table.

        If you’re going to show off like that in public, you better make sure it’s big and hard, otherwise you’re just embarrassing yourself.

    2. This is the point I keep making — if the whole thing had been done prospectively, all or substantially all of it probably would have been upheld in the end. Instead, Trump wanted to do it like it was a reality TV show.

  19. RE: Why the 9th Circuit Refused to Reinstate Trump’s Travel Ban
    The appeals court thinks many people affected by the executive order have plausible due process claims.

    1. People should go to any country they desire. If they go to some third world outhouse and get kidnapped, raped or shot, then tough shit. Choice is an important feature of any true country.
    2. Does Trump the Grump have the power to restrict free travel, or is that the domain of Congress?
    3. What are the limitations of executive orders, and why haven’t they been discussed more often in the past eight years?

  20. So ILLEGALLY sneaking in or ILLEGALLY overstaying a visa is JUST THE SAME AS WINNING AT POWER BALL. The 9 th Circus Court made it clear “including aliens,’ regardless of ‘whether their presence here is unlawful,…” So Libertarians support crashing the party? No wonder I am close to unsubscribing.

    NO NATION can live with rules like that. If the Hatians had a fleet of WWII LCVP’s they could just make an amphibious assault on Palm Beach and clog the Hearing system until they all died in the USA and their anchor babies would be the biggest winners. Libertarians support CRIMES (or at least those they “like”). Sheesch!

    1. I think it’s time to find an illegal alien who got in trouble for having a gun in Chicago and use for his Second Amendment rights. Who responded how would be most clarifying.

  21. The 9th Circuit is a disgrace, and this ruling shows it. It takes very little knowledge or intelligence to know that this is not a Muslim ban. Beyond that, the 9th has to know that religious tests are perfectly legal on immigration issues, have always been, and it is has been tested in court.

    People with permanent residency may have a due process claim, but that doesn’t matter – as the US government told the court – that has already been taken care of.

    It would be nice of we had judges who believed in enforcing the Constitution even if they don’t like the result. One reason I voted for Trump was the hope that he would clean out the judicial nut house and nominate true constitutionalists.

  22. Gee, it’s like there are actual LIMITATIONS on presidential power. Trump doesn’t get to do anything he wants just because he’s president. Who’da thunk it???

    1. These are the wrong limitations: keeping non-citizens out of the country clearly is a power the executive branch has, and needs to have.

  23. Regardless of how anyone feels about Trump and this or any other of his (many) EOs to date, this whole quagmire shows one of Trump’s major failings, his tendency to act first and ponder second. It’s obvious that he has little understanding of procedure and precedent and is acting as much on whim as he is on well thought out policy directions/goals.
    IMHO this will only get worse as his presidency progresses. He’s not one known to admit to, let alone take corrective actions to mitigate, his faults. I’m afraid what could happen if he continues to receive blowback. His reactionary nature was clearly shown with his latest exchange with Putin over nuclear arms proliferation. He could possible be a madman leading the US and by extension the rest of the world down a very dangerous path, and I fear for our future.

    1. It’s obvious that he has little understanding of procedure and precedent and is acting as much on whim as he is on well thought out policy directions/goals.

      There is nothing particularly unusual about Trump’s immigration orders; plenty of previous presidents have screwed immigrants and visitors. It would have been nice of him not to have people stranded in airports, but even that isn’t a requirement.

      No, the reason this blew up in his face is because much of the Washington bureaucracy is out to sabotage his presidency. If Obama had issued the same order, they would just have muddled through and the press would have fallen all over themselves to explain to the American people how brilliant and necessary the order was.

  24. Do people who are here unlawfully have Second Amendment rights? It sounds like they do.

    1. No, because the 9th Circuit doesn’t believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.