Trump Signs Order to Restrict Refugees from 7 Countries But Not Saudi Arabia

Courts like seeing precedence. And in this case, legal precedence was presented:

A link to the precedence cited: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

 

The President is the one seeking the ban, he has the burden of proof. The President cannot decide tomorrow to ban immigrants from Canada next month just because he claims there is a threat.

 

law is clear, 9th Circus just ignores it, as usual

 

Yep, crazy position.

From the ruling:

The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury. Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Although we agree that “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010), the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact. Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.7 Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.7 We disagree, as explained above.

To the extent that the Government claims that it has suffered an institutional injury by erosion of the separation of powers, that injury is not “irreparable.” It may yet pursue and vindicate its interests in the full course of this litigation. See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2015) (“t is the resolution of the case on the merits, not whether the injunction is stayed pending appeal, that will affect those principles.”).

 

this again? repeating it doesn't make it any more true when you conveniently ignore discrimination AGAIN

from the ruling:

Likelihood of Success—Religious Discrimination

The First Amendment prohibits any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I. A law that has a religious, not secular, purpose violates that clause, STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP 25 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971), as does one that “officially prefer [one religious denomination] over another,” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). The Supreme Court has explained that this is because endorsement of a religion “sends the ancillary message to . . . nonadherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.’” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 310 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). The Equal Protection Clause likewise prohibits the Government from impermissibly discriminating among persons based on religion. De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 50 (9th Cir. 1978). 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. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266- 26 STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP 68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose). 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, we reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.

 

Again, can you point to any part of the statute I provided (or any Federal statute) that he is required to provide such proof?

 

Can you point to specific language within the Executive Order that supports the contention that this effects any specific religion?

 

That's not a requirement for a court case. Courts routinely look at the intent behind a law when determining the facts of a case. As a recent example, when the Supreme Court reviewed the case involving whether federal subsidies for the ACA could be offered on exchanges operated by states, Chief Justice Roberts basically called the case absurd in large part because Congressional debates and testimony clearly established that Congress intended for all eligible participants (regardless of who operated the exchange) were entitled to federal subsidies.

To use an earlier case, the Supreme Court case that established birthright citizenship in the late 1800s was based in large part on Congressional records, debate and testimony clearly demonstrated that members of Congress intended to confer citizenship on anyone born in the US as part of the 14th amendment.

Using intent as a fact in case is a regular thing. It doesn't matter how you word something. The intent behind an act is just as important as well.

Also keep in mind, this case did not go over the actual merits of the case. This case was simply about the emergency stay. The DOJ couldn't provide a reason as to why there was an imminent security threat if this ban wasn't re-instated. In fact the DOJ made the absurd argument that it didn't matter as the courts have no authority to review national security claims. A case on the merits of this EO will take months. The White House is better off re-writing this EO but Trump's ego is to large to ever do that as that would admit some level of fault.

 

Listen up liberals. There is a reason why Europeans are siding with this ban. They've been through dramatic culture change in their countries. Donald Trump understands that and he's preventing it from happening in the US. If we keep allowing millions of muslims in every year in 30 years we'll be truly ****ed. Culture has to change before the US keep allowing them in and no vetting system can detect culture.

 

Good write up.

Given that intent was a big part of the argument, how does the court come to the conclusion that the intent was to adversely affect Muslims when 85% of the Muslim population of the world was unaffected? If the conclusion is that Muslims were being targeted, shouldn't that percentage be much higher?

Just curious...is the court even allowed to review potentially sensitive information (i.e. classified) in order to meet the burden the court placed on the DOJ and the Trump Administration?

 

Wrong again, fake news fan boy. There are only about 3.3 million muslims in America in total, just for starters. Last year we accepted about 39k Muslim refugees, even with normal immigration, it ain't "millions"--try again.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/

 

At least RocketLegend sees this as an effort to keep Muslims out...

 

Trump has said that the ban can expand in the future. There are other circumstances why he couldn't make it more pervasive.

As for the intent, its plainly obvious that the intent was to curtail the number of Muslim immigrants entering the US. Trump wasn't hiding that was his goal during his campaign, and Guliani admitted Trump was looking for a way to "legally" implement a Muslim ban.

Do you really think that wasn't his intention?

 

I am glad the courts continued to reject the blanket ban, but I fully expect the SCOTUS to take the case and it will be settled once and for all then.

But while this is going on, If Trump et. al think the vetting process is inadequate they should continue to improve it not end it.

 

Since immigrants and refugees from the 7 countries rarely commit crimes, yeah you can say it is adequate. They want extreme vetting for permanent residents (American citizens too from some accounts) if they're Moose Lamb.

Take this L, Trumppets.

 

I only know what the law says and the law doesn't extend to the majority of the muslim population. I also know this was something every voter pondered upon entering the voting booth when they put their trust in who would be President.

Essentially, this argument becomes one whereby Trump (or any future President) because of their past statements....can never stop the flow of any specified class of immigrants into our nation....even terrorists...because of what they might have meant by those statements instead of going by the letter of the law.

 

Well thanks to Fox and Breitbart, Trump is deathly afraid of Moose Limbs and he believes every Muslim visitor, refugee, and immigrant are imminent threats with a plot to overthrow the US to set up a Western Caliphate.

 

There is evidently precedent for courts inferring intent based on external evidence rather than going strictly by the letter of the law.

And the external evidence, in this case, is quite overwhelming as to what the intent was. Dont't disregard the statement by Guliani. That's a "smoking gun" for his intent, if ever there was one.

 

And that specifically came up doing the exchange with the Government lawyer.

CLIFTON: Stop; stop. This is Judge Clifton. You deny that in fact the statements attributed to then-Candidate Trump and to his political advisers and most recently Mr. Giuliani - do you deny that those statements were made?