Category Archives: Immigration

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!

Hold Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III accountable as the new Attorney General

Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL) — Geezus! You can almost hear the Confederate flags snapping in the breeze, can’t you? — was approved on a near party-line vote with only one Democratic defection, to become the next Attorney General of the United States after a contentious Senate vote. Jeff Sessions Confirmed as Attorney General, Capping Bitter Battle:

Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, an Alabama Republican, survived a near-party-line vote, 52 to 47, in the latest sign of the extreme partisanship at play as Mr. Trump strains to install his cabinet. No Republicans broke ranks in their support of a colleague who will become the nation’s top law enforcement official after two decades in the Senate. [Joe Manchin (D-WV) broke ranks with Democrats.]

But the confirmation process — ferocious even by the standards of moldering decorum that have defined the body’s recent years — laid bare the Senate’s deep divisions at the outset of the Trump presidency. At the same time, the treatment of Senator Elizabeth Warren, who was forced to stop speaking late Tuesday after criticizing Sen. Sessions from the Senate floor, rekindled the gender-infused politics that animated the presidential election and the women’s march protesting Mr. Trump the day after his inauguration last month.

Sen. Sessions cast his final vote as a senator to note that he was present for Wednesday’s tally. His confirmation was met by applause from his colleagues, including a few Democrats, on the Senate floor.

Continue reading

Judge Gorsuch ‘disheartened’ and ‘demoralized’ by Trump’s attacks on the independence of the judiciary

“Asked on Tuesday about President Donald Trump’s attacks on the ‘so-called judge’ who blocked his immigration executive order nationwide, House Speaker Paul Ryan defended the President. Despite the insults, Trump was respecting the appeals process, Ryan said at his weekly press conference.” Ryan Defends Trump’s Attacks On Judge: ‘He’s Respecting The Process’.

The “zombie-eyed granny starver from the state of Wisconsin” and Ayn Rand fanboy spoke too soon. On Wednesday, Trump was on the attack against the independence of the appellate court as well. Trump suggests only politics could lead court to rule against his immigration order:

President Trump denounced arguments against his immigration order as “disgraceful” on Wednesday — a day after three federal appellate judges lobbed critical inquiries at those challenging and defending the plan — and suggested a ruling against his administration would be based on politics and not a fair reading of the law.

In a speech to law enforcement officials in Washington, Trump argued his executive action is clearly legal and read aloud the relevant part of the law, which he called “so simple and so beautifully written and so perfectly written.”

“I watched last night, in amazement, and I heard things that I couldn’t believe, things that really had nothing to do with what I just read,” he said. “And I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased. And we haven’t had a decision yet. But courts seem to be so political and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right.”

Continue reading

A president ‘divorced from reality’

CBS Evening News aired an extraordinary report last night on a president “divorced from reality.” Here is a link to the video. ‘It Has Been a Busy Day for Presidential Statements Divorced from Reality’.

Screen Shot 2017-02-07 at 7.48.18 AM

Here is a rush transcript of Scott Pelley’s introduction:

President Donald Trump told a U.S. military audience that there have been terrorist attacks that no one knows about because the media choose not to report them.

It has been a busy day for presidential statements divorced from reality.

Mr. Trump said this morning that any polls that show disapproval of his immigration ban are “fake.”

He singled out a federal judge for ridicule after the judge suspended his ban, and Mr. Trump said that the ruling now means that “anyone can enter the country.”

The president’s claims, whether fabricated or imaginary, are now worrying even his backers, particularly after he insisted that millions of people voted illegally giving Hillary Clinton her popular vote victory. There’s not one state election official, Democrat or Republican, who supports that claim.

Continue reading

Some legal analysis of Trump’s Muslim travel ban executive order

I read this woefully inadequate AP report this morning in the Arizona Daily Star which included this passage at the very end of the article without any explanation or analysis that could leave the false impression to readers uninformed in the law that this is a definitive statement of the law. White House predicts courts will reinstate travel ban:

The government had told the appeals court that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States, an assertion that appeared to invoke the wider battle to come over illegal immigration.

Congress “vests complete discretion” in the president to impose conditions on entry of foreigners to the United States, and that power is “largely immune from judicial control,” according to the court filing.

So let’s begin with some basics. Deborah Pearlstein explains at the Balkinization Blogspot:

[Let’s] start with the basic legal question where the President gets the power to issue an order like this. It turns out to have a straightforward answer: Congress gave him the power in a law passed well before this administration, broadly authorizing the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants” whenever he finds their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) It is true that another law provides that no person may be discriminated against in the issuance of a visa on the basis of their “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” (8 U.S.C.§ 1152) There is a compelling argument that a court should read this anti-discrimination rule to limit the scope of the President’s power to suspend entries. But there are also arguments government lawyers will try to leverage against such a reading – like the argument that there is a difference between awarding visas and suspending entrance. And different judges read statutes differently.

Continue reading

Federal court issues nationwide injunction against Trump Muslim travel ban executive order (updated)

Editor’s Note: There are two events today in Tucson that you may want to attend:

Saturday, February 4, 10:00 a.m.: Open Forum on Trump’s recent immigration and refugee executive orders, at the Muslim Community Center of Tucson, 5100 N. Kevy Place, Tucson. Come hear lawyers who specialize in these areas discuss this executive orders and what legal changes Americans could expect to see within the next four years. Isabel Garcia will make the opening remarks and moderate the discussion, Tarik Sultan will be leading the conversation on “immigration law in the Trump era,” Thabet Khalidi in “Civil Rights and Wrongs,” and Jose Vasquez in the “Use and misuse of criminal law against targeted minorities.”

Saturday, February 4, 2:00 p.m.: Grassroots Citizens Rally Supporting Refugee Resttlement, at El Presidio Plaza Park, 175 W. Alameda Street, Tucson. This free event is sponsored by We The People, Tucson. Is this the new “Great America”? It infringes on Tucson’s “Immigrant Friendly” status. It stops/reduces refugee resettlement in America. It blocks refugees from Syria. It bans visitors from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen. It it is a penstroke away from becoming an executive order. Come help organize a greater voice against unAmerican injustices being instituted without representation. Join in raising voices against human injustice.

The Washington Post reports, today, Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump’s entry order nationwide:

A federal judge in Washington state on Friday temporarily blocked enforcement of President Trump’s controversial ban on entry to the United States nationwide, and airlines planned to begin allowing passengers from banned countries to board, according to a person familiar with the matter.

[It is not unusual for district courts to issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive actions, and the federal government must obey such injunctions even when other district courts have declined to issue injunctions in similar cases.]

Following the ruling, government authorities immediately began communicating with airlines and taking steps that would allow travel by those previously barred from doing so, according to a U.S. official. At the same time, though, the White House said in a statement that the Justice Department would “at the earliest possible time” file for an emergency stay of the “outrageous” ruling from the judge. Minutes later, it issued a similar statement omitting the word “outrageous.”

Continue reading