Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ninth Circuit gives green light for much larger travel ban (Yes, you read that correctly)
The Hill ^ | June 24, 2017 | Nolan Rappaport

Posted on 06/24/2017 6:40:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a new decision on President Donald Trump

’s March 6 Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”

The court affirmed the portions of the district court injunction that apply to the 90-day, six-country travel ban, but it vacated the portions of the injunction that relate to the government doing an internal review of its vetting procedures, which could lead to a much larger ban based on a different criterion.

The Trump exception

According to University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner, the courts are creating a “Trump exception” to settled law on presidential powers by ignoring the Supreme Court’s admonition in Kleindienst v. Mandel that courts may not “look behind” a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” when the president exercises immigration authority.

The Ninth Circuit does mention the Supreme Court’s admonition in Mandel, but gives it only cursory attention (see footnote 9 on page 33 of the decision).

If the Supreme Court does not intervene, Trump may be faced ultimately with the constitutional crisis of not being able to meet his national security responsibilities as the chief of the executive branch with respect to terrorism coming from Muslim countries, unless he defies the orders of the judicial branch.

Tip of the iceberg

The six-country travel ban is just the tip of the iceberg. The internal reviews the court has given approval to can lead to far more serious consequences.

Section 2(a) of the executive order reads as follows:

"The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall conduct a worldwide review to identify whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public-safety threat."

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

Section 2(d) directs the secretary of state to ask all foreign governments that do not supply this information already to begin providing it. The consequences of refusing to cooperate are explained in section 2(e):

"After the period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of appropriate categories of foreign nationals of countries that have not provided the information requested until they do so or until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the country has an adequate plan to do so, or has adequately shared information through other means."

Ironically, the six travel ban countries that are protected by the injunction will be subject to the new ban if their governments refuse to provide the information needed to determine whether individuals from their countries are a security or public-safety threat. On the other hand, if these governments agree to cooperate, their nationals will not be subject to the new ban.

The order to implement this program will be far less vulnerable to court interference

I predict the following improvements in the executive order for the new ban: •It will not apply just to predominantly Muslim countries. •The original travel ban order was hastily issued one week after Trump’s inauguration without an interagency review. The new one will be based on a worldwide review by the secretary of homeland security in consultation with the secretary of state and the director of national intelligence. •It will depend entirely on the cooperativeness of the government of the alien’s country. It only will ban aliens from countries with governments that refuse to cooperate, and the ban will be lifted if and when these governments agree to cooperate. •It will not apply categorically to every alien from a country with an uncooperative government. It only will ban appropriate categories of aliens from those countries. •To prevent more ad hominem attacks on his character and endless references to his campaign statements, Trump will accept the recommendations of his agency heads and let them implement the ban without further input from the White House.

Where this is headed

Unlike the travel ban, which, notwithstanding pessimistic claims to the contrary, is just a 90-day suspension, the new ban will apply to uncooperative governments until they agree to cooperate, which in some cases will never happen. What's more, it almost certainly will apply to more than six countries. According to DHS Secretary John Kelley, in addition to the six countries on the travel ban list, 13 or 14 other countries also have very questionable vetting procedures.

********

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; aliens; immigration; judiciary; travelban; trump; trumptravelban
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

1 posted on 06/24/2017 6:40:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What does this article say in one sentence?


2 posted on 06/24/2017 6:45:15 PM PDT by DrDude (Get rid of everything Obama or Clinton!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrDude

Looks like CYA before Monday.


3 posted on 06/24/2017 6:47:23 PM PDT by CMailBag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

When judges don’t follow the law — there is no law.


4 posted on 06/24/2017 6:51:48 PM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrDude

“What does this article say in one sentence?”

We are Marxist hacks, and hate when the Supreme Court makes it obvious when they overturn our decisions. So let’s cover our ass.


5 posted on 06/24/2017 6:53:32 PM PDT by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CMailBag

They figured out they’re gonna get fired


6 posted on 06/24/2017 6:54:36 PM PDT by Keyhopper (Indians had bad immigration laws)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The crux of the 9th circuit argument was based on their comment that Trump’s travel restrictions “ were full of animus”

In sum, the reason they gave for a random and totally improper grasp at removing immigration authority from Trump is: “we think he’s being mean!”

This how far the courts have fallen since progs took them over


7 posted on 06/24/2017 6:54:40 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Worst. article. ever.

Pure gobbledygook.

8 posted on 06/24/2017 6:55:06 PM PDT by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CMailBag
Looks like CYA before Monday.

Exactly. Call it the Gorsuch Effect.
9 posted on 06/24/2017 6:57:27 PM PDT by nicollo (MAGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
"Worst. article. ever.

Pure gobbledygook. "

No kidding - What a pant load!

10 posted on 06/24/2017 6:58:07 PM PDT by demkicker (My passion for freedom is stronger than that of Democrats whose obsession is to enslave me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

So, is this good, or more “lawyer speak”?


11 posted on 06/24/2017 6:58:08 PM PDT by GT Vander (Life's priorities; God, Family, Country. Everything else is just details...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrDude

It says that the court created a condition that allows the US to block refugees from any country that can’t provide vetting information on the people fleeing their country.


12 posted on 06/24/2017 6:58:23 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I wonder how many murdering terrorists have entered while our “public servants” have been screwing around?


13 posted on 06/24/2017 6:59:42 PM PDT by Aria (Uniparty: Conducted the biggest heist ever. Trillions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Place a travel ban on ALL muzzies.


14 posted on 06/24/2017 7:01:54 PM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I hope the Antifas realize that if they force the country into martial law, the Constitution is suspended and all federal judges can go kiss Trump’s adz. We will have only state and local law. Can you find Texas on a map?


15 posted on 06/24/2017 7:05:16 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The new ban will apply to uncooperative governments until they agree to cooperate, which in some cases will never happen. What's more, it almost certainly will apply to more than six countries.

GOOD..!

16 posted on 06/24/2017 7:06:17 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Eric Posner is the son of United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit judge Richard Posner.


17 posted on 06/24/2017 7:07:56 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

GET OUT.

18 posted on 06/24/2017 7:07:58 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher; All

It’s very technical, but I THINK it says the court may not look past the official reason for an action, if those are legitimate, to determine if the person had other reasons BESIDES the legitimate reasons, to reject it.

In short they can;t do what they did- reject Trumps legitimate actions because of things he aid in the past.

This should have been their first decision.

I hope they get overturned and procedures begun to remove them.

Redistrict the 9th circuit- split it up into several pieces, with their piece being about 1 square block around their court house.


19 posted on 06/24/2017 7:08:58 PM PDT by Mr. K (***THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE OF REPEALING OBAMACARE THAT IS WORSE THAN OBAMACARE ITSELF***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gaijin
They belong somewhere.

BUT NOT HERE.

20 posted on 06/24/2017 7:10:06 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson