BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court panel unanimously upholds injunction of Trump’s Muslim travel ban executive order

The Washington Post reports this breaking news, Federal appeals court maintains suspension of Trump’s immigration order:

A federal appeals court has maintained the freeze on President Trump’s controversial immigration order, meaning previously barred refugees and citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries can continue entering the U.S.

Read the Per Curiam order HERE.

A panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the ruling of U.S. District Judge James Robart, who had decided Friday that Trump’s temporary travel ban should be put on hold. The Department of Homeland Security soon suspended all enforcement of Trump’s controversial directive.

The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, could now ask the Supreme Court — which often defers to the president on matters of immigration and national security — to intervene. The Supreme Court, though, remains one justice short, and many see it as ideologically split 4-4. A tie would keep in place whatever the appeals court decides.

This is what occurred with the President Obama’s immigration orders challenged in a Texas court, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674, when the Supreme Court deadlocked and left an injunction in place. Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama Immigration Plan.

Let the Trump Twitter rage commence!

16 Responses to BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court panel unanimously upholds injunction of Trump’s Muslim travel ban executive order

  1. WOW! I am shocked!! Shocked, I say!! That the 9th Circuit Court ruled against Trump. Who could possibly have seen this coming? Oh yeah! Anyone who was rational knew exactly what the very liberal 9th Circuit was going to do.

    Now, Trump will have to decide whether to take it to the Supreme Court or to rewrite it and issue it with different language. One thing is for certain, Trump won’t give up on it.

    Thank God I am actually witnessing the right fight for a principal rather than just rolling over and playing dead for the left. These are exciting times!!!

    • What is the principle that Trump is fighting for, if I may ask?

      • For Sure Not Tom

        Steve says he’s fighting for a “principal”, so I assume he’s talking about school choice?

        Otherwise, I’d say the principle he’s fighting for is White Nationalism.

        • “Steve says he’s fighting for a “principal”, so I assume he’s talking about school choice?”

          Well, I am always in favor of school choice, but that really isn’t what I was talking about here. Of course you really didn’t think I was, either, but it did provide a small chuckle.

          “Otherwise, I’d say the principle he’s fighting for is White Nationalism.”

          Wrong again, my friend. That isn’t even an issue with this problem. The problem is the Courts usurping the powers of the President through a false Constitutional issue. There is no surprise that it wound up in the Courts because that is what democrats have always done to get their way. Find a liberal judge in the 9th Circuit Court District and file suit. That is why the 9th Circuit has been overturned more than any other Circuit Court in the Nation. But I have hope that will be changing when it becomes more and more difficult to get their way through the Supreme Court.

          • For Sure Not Tom

            This garbage again.

            The 9th is the most overturned because the 9th does the most work.

            From 1999 t0 2008, only 0.151% of its cases were even reviewed by the SCOTUS.

            About 65% of the 0.151% were overturned. Not much more, percentage-wise, than all other federal courts.

            So 0.09815% of the 9th’s cases were overturned. Shocking.

            So please stop with the 9th most overturned talking point, it’s typical conservative garbage, because it “sounds” like it means something when it really doesn’t.

            The courts ARE THERE to limit the power of the POTUS, and the power of the House and Senate. The founding fathers, with all their faults, did that on purpose. Quit crying about it.

            Who gave us President GW Bush? Who gave Corporations “people” status? Who gave us Citizens United?

            Yeah, conservatives hate the courts except when they don’t.

            What we’re seeing from your so called President Trump is brain-washing of his supporters to hate judges preemptively so he can blame them for his failures later.

          • “So please stop with the 9th most overturned talking point, it’s typical conservative garbage, because it “sounds” like it means something when it really doesn’t.”

            First, you know I’m not going to stop…have I ever stopped? Second, it IS important because even though it is only a tiny percentage of the cases being reviewed, 80% of them (not 65%) are overturned. That is significant in that it tells you if the Supreme Court could take more cases, there is a good likelihood that more of 9th Circuit Courts cases would be overturned.

            “The courts ARE THERE to limit the power of the POTUS, and the power of the House and Senate.”

            No, the courts are there to rule on the Constitutionality of laws and actions, not to limit the powers. I can understand why you might be confused about that since the Courts have, over the last forty years, taken it on themselves to legislate from the bench and to limit what the Executive and Legislative Branches do.

            “What we’re seeing from your so called President Trump…”

            Nothing “so called” about it, Tom, he is the President.

          • There is a certain hypocrisy at play here.

            When SCOTUS mandated legal gay marriage in the Obergefell (sp?) case, or upholding the ACA, it was a glaring example of ‘activist judges going against American principles’, according to those on the right. But when they handed down Citizens United, the exact same 9 judges are now ‘good Constitutionalists defending our values’.

            It seems like the right’s definition of ‘liberal activist judge’ is ‘judge who makes decisions I don’t like’.

            (Personally, I would rather have 9 Anthony Kennedy / Merrick Garland style of moderates on the Court than known partisans in either direction.)

          • “When SCOTUS mandated legal gay marriage in the Obergefell (sp?) case, or upholding the ACA, it was a glaring example of ‘activist judges going against American principles’, according to those on the right.”

            I did not object to the findings, but it was wrong that the Supreme Court, in effect, legislated from the bench. That is one of our great problem today in that the Courts have gone far beyond their Constitutional role of ruling on whether laws passed and actions taken were Constitutional.

            “(Personally, I would rather have 9 Anthony Kennedy / Merrick Garland style of moderates on the Court than known partisans in either direction.)”

            I think I would, also. I don’t like the current system of partisan judges who use their power to push their agenda.

      • “What is the principle that Trump is fighting for, if I may ask?”

        That the President is reponsible for the security of the Nation. If something bad happens, who do the American people turn to and hold accountable? The President. The Congress has the responsibility of providing the President what he needs to safeguard our security, but the buck stops at the Presidents desk. And the Courts have little to do with the security of the Nation, one way or the other. I can assure you that, if something bad happens, you won’t find a single judge stepping forward to say, “Maybe we were wrong.” They will disappear like cockroaches on a kitchen floor at midnight.

        • For Sure Not Tom

          The travel ban is on Muslims. Your so called President promised to ban muslims.

          And conservatives called it a muslim ban until they found out you can’t legally call it that.

          It is not about security, and dozens of intelligence officials have come out and said so. The ban makes us less safe and plays into our enemies hands.

          This is about President Bannon’s plan for a White Christian America.

          The End.

          • “The travel ban is on Muslims.”

            I won’t argue that point. But it is a ban on certain Muslims, not all muslims.

            “The ban makes us less safe and plays into our enemies hands.”

            That is a silly statement, Tom. How can we be less safe if the ban keeps Islamists out of the Country? And how can it be playing into our enemies hands if they cannot get their agents into the Country?

            “This is about President Bannon’s plan for a White Christian America.”

            Bannon has about as much chance of turning America into a white Christian nation as I have of winning an Oscar. Ain’t gonna’ happen! You know that as well as I do. You use that as a straw man for arguments sake but it is rather pointless to keep dragging it out. I don’t care how much Bannon might want it to be that way, or you imagine he wants it to be that way, it is a moot point. America is what it is and it will only become more so…which is fine with me. ;o)

          • For Sure Not Tom

            Actually, President Bannon has been pretty explicit in his talks and interviews over the last few years. He wants to destroy the economy, create riots in the streets, and use “law and order” to finish up his coup.

            And just a week or two ago you were saying yourself that the country is headed for a civil war.

            So, congrat’s on the Oscar for “Least Consistent Online Commenter”.

            As far as your nonsense about the ban making us safer, you’re not listening to the intelligence community, you’re letting your prejudices and “feelings” do the thinking for you.

          • “And just a week or two ago you were saying yourself that the country is headed for a civil war.”

            I do fear that, Tom, but it has nothing to do with race, religion, sexual preferences, gender identity, etc. It will be based on political ideology. The left versus the right. I fear the gap between the two is becoming unbridgeable and the disagreements may well move beyond simple verbiage.

            “So, congrat’s on the Oscar for “Least Consistent Online Commenter”.”

            There is no inconsistency here, Tom. I do not, for a single moment, believe that America is headed for a nation ruled by white supremists regardless of what Bannon says or doesn’t say. If Bannon thinks it is possible, he is deluded. We are just to diverse a Nation for that to even be concievable.

            “As far as your nonsense about the ban making us safer, you’re not listening to the intelligence community…”

            I went out on Google and looked and there is a variety of opinions as to whether or not the ban makes us safer, and those opinions are all over the place.

            You know, you act as if this is the first time such has been put in place, but it isn’t. It is just that Trump is doing this one and THAT is why there is such a hue and cry going on. As I have said before, I expect a “crisis of the week” for Trump’s entire eight years in office.

        • I am not sure we want to be compromising our values and our freedoms for the sake of temporary feelings of safety.

          It’s also telling that Saudi Arabia is suspiciously not on the list of nations banned under BLOTUS’s list, given that Saudi nationals were the principal architects behind 9/11 and the Wahhabi sect in power is a known funder of terrorist activity throughout the Middle East. Odd, that.

          • For Sure Not Tom

            Mulsim countries where Trump has resorts/golf courses/Towers are not on the list, either, including Turkey, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia.

            The travel ban on a handful of Muslim countries was all for show, just like half or more of his EOs.

            The guy’s a scam artist. He claimed to have put everything into a “blind trust”, the funny thing is, the blind trust is tied to one Social Security number, Don the Con’s.

            The lawlessness in just the first few weeks is incredible.

            The GOP owns this.

          • “I am not sure we want to be compromising our values and our freedoms for the sake of temporary feelings of safety.”

            Edward, you act as if this is the first time this has ever happened. Obama did it as did Clinton. There have been other temporary bans on immigration instituted in the past. This one has made news because it is Trump and everything he does is going to be dealt with as if it is the end of the world.

            “It’s also telling that Saudi Arabia is suspiciously not on the list…”

            I agree. Saudi Arabia should have been on the list, in my opinion. It would be interesting to know why it wasn’t included.