The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered last night that a Washington state federal judge’s order restraining Trump from enforcing his Muslim ban — the one that effectively bans Muslims from 7 countries from entering the United States, even if they are green card holders or have refugee status — shall not be lifted.
Washington v. Trump – Order Denying Motion to Lift TRO (.pdf)
From the 29-page, well-reasoned opinion:
The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. …
The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim…
Since posting my first story about this, I’ve had many comment on the blog that my constitutional analysis (tl;dr: it’s unconstitutional) is wrong and that it’s not a Muslim ban because Trump didn’t ban all Muslims (yet). I have two questions for you:
- How many judges must rule that Trump’s ban is unconstitutional before you will stop blaming “activist judges” for getting the law wrong? The ruling yesterday was a unanimous 3-judge panel, which brings the total up to at least 6 federal judges now ruling against the ban.
- How many Muslims must Trump ban before you admit it’s a blatant attempt to discriminate based on religion? (If he adds Indonesia to the list, will that be good enough?)
I have a better question. How many times does the 9th circuit court have to be overruled before people stop taking its rulings so seriously? I’ve seen lawyers interviewed about going before the 9th circuit court. You know it is bad when lawyers are hoping to lose in the 9th so that they can get it overturned in the SCOTUS.
1. SCOTUS doesn’t hear the majority of appeals. If you’re assuming SCOTUS is in constant disagreement with a particular appellate court, you’re wrong.
2. Of the appeals SCOTUS does hear, it overturns the majority from all appellate courts
But but Fox News said……
A quick google showed the stats are from here:
Link to pdf file:
Click to access LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf
Little quote from there:
“… and the Ninth Circuit has the second highest reversal
rate at 80%.”
That explains why lawyers feel the way they do about the 9th circuit doesn’t it? Some more recent numbers I’ve heard, it is closer to 90% and passed the other court.
You’re omitting the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court typically only takes cases it wants to reverse, and it refuses to hear 98% of the cases submitted to it. So you really mean 80% of 2%.
I’m not missing anything. Go look at what it says and the site is not Fox News. If the American Bar Association doesn’t know how to track courts and such, then who does? Your first response was about it being a Fox News number. Now that I’ve shown WHERE the number comes from, you want to argue that the ABA is using wrong numbers. No, the numbers is what they said it is and they show it for those who doubt it. It even has pictures.
When a case from the 9th circuit goes to the SCOTUS, it is more often than not overturned and by a margin a good bit higher than the other court. Twist it any way you want but it doesn’t change what the ABA says. I posted a link to it. If you want to say the info there is wrong, go tell the ABA that so they can fix it. Given how they did the research, good luck with that.
Politics does effect court rulings, and there is no way politically the 9th circuit would once again throw immigration in crisis but not upholding the lower court and remanding the case for trial. Regardless of how the ban turns out, I am glad to see someone start putting limits on imperial presidential power. I expect Trump will come up with a better ban that will meet court muster. I personally, think some improvements of the process could be made such as each new immigrant from a suspect country gets a quick additional interview on arrival, and if anything suspicious, the a much more deeper review and maybe even a lie detector test.
I found a email talking about this upcoming legislation.
Your arguments and the judges’ arguments appear to me to be impeccable. However, you and your judges are mistaken and wrong in your judgement because allowing terrorists into your country will inevitably result in more Terror Incidents. You have failed to note that the west is at war with Islam and the consequences of your foolish misperception will be death and suffering and more death and suffering. But you will be able to proudly state that you made the correct legal argument and acted impeccably as you read the salacious details of death and suffering or watch them live on CNN.
Sorry, no, we are not “at war with Islam.” I’m not an apologist and I don’t deny that Islam appears to motivate many of the terror attacks we see around the world. But we are fighting Muslim extremists, not the religion itself. Free exercise of religion and thought is what made this country great the first time, and America will not be “made great again” by letting the terrorists necessitate the demise of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
You might want to read up on islam. It’s goal is to rule the world with islam and sharia law. It also teaches that it can use force to do it, which includes what ISIS and others are doing. Unless we realize what we are fighting, we are going to be in for rough times.
It appears very clear that Mr Corbett has very little knowledge of Islam and what it is actually about. Its not enough for him to pretend balance by stating ” I’m not an apologist” because he is so obviously an apologist. Islam is about forcing submission to its ideology and beliefs. Its going on right under Mr Corbett’s nose and he carries on as if he’s oblivious to the dangers of allowing extremists to speak freely and to justify violence and killing for Islam. Doubtless he would defend the freedom of this man, Syed Saad Ali, an Islamist scholar in New Jersey, to influence the other Muslims in the US in supporting such killing. So please do not insult my intelligence, Mr Corbett, by insisting that there is a separation between Terror and Islam – the evidence that Islam IS Terror is right under your nose. All you have to do is open your eyes. If you want to stop the Terror searches, get rid of the cause by taking the time and trouble to acquaint yourself with the Koran and by making yourself aware of what Muslims in your community are doing.
Could you separate peaceful Germans from the Nazis? Islam as a whole is an ideology of submission and your failure to understand this makes you vulnerable to genital groping by security personnel. It is impossible to “combat Terror ” without combating the ideology of Islam, including its book of hate speech, the Koran. If you are prepared to suffer the consequences of your support for “the religion itself”, then stop whining about the Terror searches your support forces you to undergo. You cannot have one without the other.