Travel Ban Blocked Again, Possible Supreme Court Showdown

T. Belman. Liberalism run amok. In effect this decision embraces the idea that all religions are equal. Liberals also argue that all cultures are equal. Liberals and the Court deny us the right to discriminate against the teaching of Islam or any religion no matter how odious. They deny us the right to protect our culture. They deny us the right to reject some ideologies embraced by religion. They deny us the right to protect our lives and way of life. Yes the law must protect minority rights but it must also protect majority rights.

The US constitution was written when religion was a matter of the relation of the believer and his God. It said in essence that a person can believe what he wants. In general one can believe what he wants but one can’t act on those beliefs if such acts are criminal. Islam is not only a religion in the classic sense but it is also a manifesto for subjugating the world. The US banned communism. Why can’t it ban Islam because of its ideology?

By Ian Mason, BREITBART

An en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld an injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order curtailing travel and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries Thursday.

The 10-3 majority, in a 67-page opinion, affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, in essence holding that even an executive order that makes no mention of Islam in its text can be invalidated for violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because of comments Trump and his associates made during and after the 2016 presidential election.

Calling the Establishment Clause a “untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles,” Chief Judge Roger Gregory’s opinion for the court calls the travel ban “an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

“Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute,” Gregory writes, discounting that the wide latitude given to the President under the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny entry to classes of travelers and immigrants on national security grounds justifies President Trump’s executive order.

The majority then launches into a litany of quotes from President Trump, his advisers, and his campaign website made during and after the election season of 2016, as proof that the travel ban represents a government “purpose” to favor one religion over another. Relying on Establishment Clause precedent that has never been applied in the immigration context, the court decided that the administration’s proffered purpose of keeping Americans safe from terrorism was a mere pretext for disfavoring the Islamic faith.

One quote used to establish an unacceptable purpose was that of then-Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Peirson on CNN that, “I think Islam hates us … [W]e can’t allow people coming into the country who have this hatred … [w]e’ve allowed this propaganda to spread all through the country that [Islam] is a religion of peace.”

The court dismisses the national security rationale for the order, conducting its own inquiry into the efficacy of the travel ban in protecting Americans. The majority cites “former National Security Officials” saying the order serves “no legitimate national security purpose” and that “there is no evidence of any new security risks emanating from these countries.”

The majority also gave credence to the claims of some of the Muslim plaintiffs, represented by a litany of progressive legal groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union, that the existence of the travel ban causes them irreparable damages by causing “them feelings of disparagement and exclusion” or feeling “isolated and disparaged in [their] community.” They cite one plaintiff who claimed that his wife, who wears the hijab in public “sense[s] a lot of hostility from people” and that his hijab-wearing neices “say that people make mean comments and stare at them for being Muslim.”

Each of the three dissenting Judges filed separate dissenting opinions and joined in each others’. Judge Paul Niemeyer, relying on precedent that holds that the foreign affairs context in which the executive order operates is the apex of executive power, chatised the majority for its refusal to limit its inquiry to the text of the order itself:

In looking behind the face of the government’s action for facts to show the alleged bad faith, rather than looking for bad faith on the face of the executive action itself, the majority grants itself the power to conduct an extratextual search for evidence suggesting bad faith, which is exactly what three Supreme Court opinions have prohibited.

Thursday’s ruling represents a ruling on the merits of the case and cements the injunction preventing the order from coming into effect. The only avenue remaining for the administration to continue its defense of the order is a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States. This would set up a final showdown over the constitutionality of the travel ban before the nation’s highest court.

As the travel ban was always a temporary measure only to apply for 90 days, a term set to expire in June, the government will likely have to petition the Supreme Court on an emergency basis in order to have the Court reconvene to hear arguments before the case becomes moot.

May 26, 2017 | 12 Comments » | 90 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

12 Comments / 12 Comments

  1. :
    The US Congress needs to vote to cut funding for the US courts, on the way to ABOLISHING at least 10 circuits; the USG can keep its courts in the District of Columbia.

    That’ll show ’em.

    Don’t look for the lawyer-filled Congress, and especially not the DEMs (who are tools of the trial lawyers anyhow), to do that any time soon.

  2. Attorney General Jeff Sessions vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court.

    That’s the way it works.

  3. The US banned communism.

    :
    What are you talking about?

    In the USA, communism is the established religion.

  4. :
    Chief Judge Roger Gregory called the Establishment clause an

    untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles

    I hate him.

    He reminds me of that mealy-mouthed, Reagan appointee, windbag Anthony Kennedy.

  5. The only thing wrong with Trump so far is his failure to drain the swamp that is whining and winning again and again. Non of Obama’s executive orders were ever questioned. But new precedents such as campaign comments made months ago are admissable months later as reasons to stop Trumps exec orders?. And of course, no-one must make Islamists feel isolated and excluded but American young people can have their lives cut short and their legs blown off by Islamist terrorists. Truly a land of Freedom and the American dream that has become a nightmare.

  6. HIAS helped my father settle in when he came to this country 72 years ago. Now they are helping our persecutors to follow us here. These morons actually thinks this observation makes no sense. Like I think it makes no sense, when they say torture is ineffective in getting terrorists to reveal what they know. Gimme a break!*

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-immigration-group-files-lawsuit-against-trump-refugee-ban/

    http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/news/national_news/appeals-court-upholds-hias-suit-against-trump-travel-ban/article_c7915282-087a-5233-92af-eb8c471137e4.html

    *I’m always reminded of this scene in which Kirk gets the culprit to reveal where he planted the bomb by beating it out of him. at approx 52 seconds. in trailer for Star Trek TOS episode, “Court Martial.” It’s just common sense that torture should be among an interrogator’s tools. Ridiculous to have resort to semantic euphemism and obfuscations like “enhanced interrogation.” Ha Ha. Otherwise, we are operating with one hand tied behind our backs, which is what Obama did to our forces, and Trump has undone somewhat. The use of psychologists is also essential, another feature of the war in Iraq that let us win, that the liberals took away, leading to our ultimate defeat, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, as usual.

    https://youtu.be/BcqLj9eHObU

  7. @ Abolish_public_education:
    If the government didn’t have rights, on what basis could lawyers represent it in court and why does the government sometimes win and sometimes lose? And how to make sense of the conflicts between the three branches of government? How to make sense of the the US Constitution, most of which discusses what rights to exercise authority the different branches and officers, from the President on down, have, and under what circumstances? Trump’s news conference about his travel ban was all about what the Constitution and statute say. The Constitution gave the rights to decide to Congress which gave them to the President. These liberal courts, honestly, don’t care what the Constitution says. Aren’t there any conservative judges Trump could contest this before or counter-sue in front of.
    They are citing the immigration acts of 1965 and 1990 which prohibit discrimination but these clearly refer to the quota system on legal immigration which is utterly apples and oranges.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990

    Wow, this is so out-of-date. No mention of terrorism. 1990 after all, the year the Soviet Bloc, collapsed.

    “The report concluded with the following statement of principles: “Properly-regulated immigration and immigrant policy serves the national interest by ensuring the entry of those who will contribute most to our society and helping lawful newcomers adjust to life in the United States. It must give due consideration to shifting economic realities. A well-regulated system sets priorities for admission; facilitates nuclear family reunification; gives employers access to a global labor market while protecting U.S. workers; helps to generate jobs and economic growth; and fulfills our commitment to resettle refugees as one of several elements of humanitarian protection of the persecuted.”[12]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990

    Congress needs to redo this. But, the courts would probably throw it out, anyway. They only had to start by basing themselves on actual legislative. Now, they can use any criteria they like. They can throw out a piece of legislation as easily as base their decision on it.

    Contrary liberal-speak, how is a judiciary that is this wildly, crazily independent, a sign of democracy?

  8. :
    The USG is granted eighteen or so *powers* (Article 1).

    When the government sues itself, that’s just Big Government making billable hours for lawyers. It has nothing to do with the purported mission of government, i.e. protecting the rights of individuals.

    Government, as a representative of the People, has legal standing to sue someone for damages caused by, say, spraying graffiti on city hall, but it’s not as though the government has property rights. It can’t just, for example, buy an acre on a lakeshore and put up a vacation house; I’m sure it has already done so in many places.

    I’m not sure what you mean by ‘constitutional authority that congress delegated to the president’. Congress has no authority to delegate (punt) its enumerated powers. Or maybe you’d like to see it permit a government bureaucrat impose taxes? Wait, it already does.

    I agree that the vast majority of left-wing judges don’t understand the USC. Eighth grade English must be more complicated than we’ve been led to believe because most right-wing judges don’t understand it, either.

  9. :
    Blocked 🙁

    The USG is granted eighteen or so *powers* (Article 1).

    When the government sues itself, that’s just Big Government making billable hours for lawyers. It has nothing to do with the purported mission of government, i.e. protecting the rights of individuals.

    Government, as a representative of the People, has legal standing to sue someone for damages caused by, say, spraying graffiti on city hall, but it’s not as though the government has property rights. It can’t just, for example, buy an acre on a lakeshore and put up a vacation house; I’m sure it has already done so in many places.

    I’m not sure what you mean by ‘constitutional authority that congress delegated to the president’. Congress has no authority to delegate (punt) its enumerated powers. Or maybe you’d like to see it permit a government bureaucrat to impose taxes? Wait, it does.

    I agree that the vast majority of left-wing judges can’t understand the USC. Eighth grade English must be more complicated than we’ve been led to believe because most right-wing judges can’t understand it, either.

    Unblocked 🙂

Comments are closed.