If you agree with the rule of law, regardless of your political persuasions, then this ruling by the 9th Circuit to refuse to lift a stay on President Trump’s immigration order is just plain wrong. Here. You can read the law for yourself.
US law code says this, word for word, verbatim, exactly as it is written here:
“(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
You can look up the full text HERE from Cornell law.
Is not that wording rather unambiguous?
“Whenever” – That seems to indicate at any time. There are no qualifications on that.
“for such a period he shall deem necessary” – That also seems straight forward.
“suspend the entry” – “all aliens or any class of aliens” – “any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Question: How, in light of this US statute, did the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rule against Trump?
And this is the problem, they didn’t even address this statute in their ruling. They were sure to mention statements Trump made during the campaign, but they didn’t mention the law. Aren’t judges meant to interpret law rather than campaign stump speeches? I could be wrong, I’ve never gone to law school.
Regardless of your personal view on Trump’s executive order, this ruling is a clear overreach by the 9th circuit. It is substituting their opinion on immigration policy in exchange for the President’s opinion. The judges even asked the government attorney to show them the information which would prove that this ban is necessary. But here’s the PROBLEM, according to the law, the President doesn’t have to do that. It’s at the President’s discretion and only the President’s discretion. Read the statute again. The language couldn’t be more clear.
The 9th circuit is the most liberal and frequently overturned appellate court in the United States. This ruling from them is not unexpected, especially when you hear the arguments the government’s lawyer made. Honestly, I think some of my American Government students could have made a stronger argument.
If this case reaches the Supreme Court, I think it is an easy win for the executive branch. If the 9th Circuit wanted to argue that the statute above is unconstitutional and should be overturned, at least that would have made some logical sense. It may still be devoid of fact if you scour the Constitution, but at least it would be a court, using their judicial review privilege to state that a law in unconstitutional. But now all you have is a court calling an executive order unconstitutional when it has a clear and unambiguous law backing it up.
The 9th Circuit has proved their bias once again.