UPDATED

What the Ninth Circuit Is Saying About Trump Travel Ban

, The Recorder

   | 12 Comments

It was Judge Michelle Friedland, the most junior judge on the panel, who opened the hearing and had the first pointed question for the lawyer representing the Trump administration.

This premium content is reserved for New Jersey Law Journal subscribers.

Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now

What's being said

  • bright_qng@yahoo.com

    American Citizens should perform duty In my opinion that our nation would have been showing for signal of bad events because we, the American citizens have been performing our duty and responsibility correctly through election and electoral college. But the core of interests of the political party has treason, it fighting for throne let’s sow chaotic world through a New World Orders. For example, it was treason, it has distorted H.R 5490 to be H.R. 7885. on other hand, 8.US code sec1182 when President Trump was performing correctly for his duty, but the interests of political party, it builds chaotic nation. If it is patriotic citizens, it should support for the Trump let him perform his duty and responsibility. If it did not respect the Trump, it shall wait for the four years later. It will use its ballot in order to overthrow the Trump which is why it does not express its patriot.

  • eric d. meyer

    Thanks to A. Real, Esq. for the polite comments. They are entirely befitting the Trump administration. I must add that Trump‘s hostile comments about the US courts, made while judicial review of his executive orders on immigration are in progress, are entirely unacceptable under the US Constitution‘s doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances, which require the deference of executive deference to the judicial power. It is not the proper business of the executive to make law, only to enforce existing law. And it is the proper business of the judicial branch to decide if the executive orders are constitutional and if enforcing those orders oversteps executive power. Trump‘s comments raise the dangerous possibility that the executive will employ its monopoly on violence to override (not to say: bully) the judicial branch, foreboding the danger of rule by sovereign executive dictatorship, which is exactly the danger the US Constitution was written to avoid.

  • A. Real, Esq.

    You would think that an online Law Journal would consider monitoring its comments so that you don‘t have to wade through a lot of nonsense like the comments below when a controversial issue is before the Courts. I just ignore them generally.

  • eric d. meyer

    What‘s surprising are the blatantly Trumpist comments here on NLJ. As was stated in oral argument, there have been absolutely no---zero, nil, none---attacks by terrorists, Muslim or otherwise, from the named countries in Trump‘s executive order on US soil. This is documented record. On the question of presidential authority, it‘s also ironic that the same so-called conservatives who screamed bloody murder when Obama signed executive orders now think Trump can rule the sovereign executive branch as absolute dictator, without even paying lip-service to Congress and the courts---checks and balances, separation of powers, that silly US Constitution stuff--when dictating legislation from the White House. (Remember "legislating from the bench"?) As for America‘s right to exclude refugees from America‘s wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so on. Yes. there‘s no absolute right of refugees to sanctuary. There‘s only the basic Christian American moral principle of helping the down-trodden and disadvantaged, as in this hack poem from the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” But that not written into US refugee law, the 14th Amendment, or the US Constitution, so I guess it won‘t be heard in court, will it?

  • Matthew G Zatkalik

    Surprising isn‘t it? Well, not really, that the ‘best legal minds‘ placing American citizens at risk by challenging President Trump‘s Executive Order are so ill-prepared, ill-advised and ill-equipped to handle the task. Political appointments introduce a totally new ingredient into jurisprudence: retarding the rule of law and order from within the system/swamp.

  • Richard R. Tryon

    Considering that this skirmish is really all about controlling legal turf, not about ever focusing on the far more important issue- does the President of the U.S. have the legal responsibility and power to restrict normal avenues of controlling borders and limiting access of non-citizens of the U.S.; or are such considerations of little or no interest to the three Federal Judges involved with the Robart legalistic determination? Is the safety of the nation of less importance than the perceived idea of rights belonging to non- U.S. citizens who might prefer what Hillary offered- open borders and automatic voting rights along with other citizen entitlements under the idea that international law spawns universal human rights that transcend those structured by the not yet replaced U.S. Constitution? The nation‘s states and elected President are always ready to allow voters to set about via an amendment that could make the U.S. subject to control by the U.N.; but it is unlikely that the majorities in most of the states, and the Congress would let such a proposal be entertained at this point in time.

  • MArtin Michaels

    CLearly, Liberals (including the, so far, 4 judges involved) in this case don‘t get it that these countries are named are named because they are predominantly Muslim, but because they are the predominant sources of terrorists, who are 99% of the time MUSLIMs. Citizens of these countries DO NOT have the protections of OUR Constitution; nor do they have the right to come to OUR country. It is not only the President‘s privilege (granted by Congress) to set immigration/visa policies, it is his duty and responsibility. For too long now, judges have usurped the roles of both the legislative and executive branches, taking it upon themselves to legislate and issue edicts from the bench.

  • Darren

    Friedland‘s a silly pacifist who has no business being w/in 10 miles of national security policymaking. After all, the statutory and constitutional authority of the executive to exclude certain aliens or classes of aliens is inherently discriminatory, so questions about intended discrimination are irrelevant. Furthermore, it‘s absurd to suggest that any foreign national has a right, constitutional or otherwise, to emigrate to the U.S. The People get to decide who enters their country and, for good or bad, the People spoke in electing Donald Trump president.

  • Katherine

    I thought most of the questions were not on point and about irrelevant issues. And gee, do you think Friedland is already Trump hater? Standing? Anyone? Trump comments during the course of the campaign? Really? ugh.

  • eric d. meyer

    I don‘t think (although I could be wrong, I‘m not a lawyer!) that the court could reach the constitutional question of Trump‘s overreaching authority, since the executive order was made under Congressional statutory authority, and discussion of the Establishment Clause and Equal Protections/Due Process Claims was premature, since this was a hearing on the TRO, and not, except indirectly, on standing or the merits (although those questions featured surprisingly strongly in the argument). The big question, for me, is whether, in short or long term, the Trump administration will recognize the authority of the courts to rule upon his executive orders. And, if not, what happens then?

  • Jim

    I would have thought the argument was if the action was constitutional not what the evidence is or did I miss something. Under that logic, wait until innocent people are killed then come back?

  • Denise

    Is this argument limited to the 4 corners of the order? Further, as for evidence, 5 1/2 countries listed do not have a U.S. embassy and visa/diplomatic operations are limited in others, can that be introduced?

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202778677276

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.