Trump Muslim Ban Appeal DENIED

[presence]

At issue in this emergency proceeding is Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which, among other changes to immigration policies and procedures, bans for 90 days the entry into the United States of individuals from seven countries. Two States challenged the Executive Order as unconstitutional and violative of federal law, and a federal district court preliminarily ruled in their favor and temporarily enjoined enforcement of the Executive Order.

The Government now moves for
an emergency stay
of the district court’s temporary restraining order
while its appeal of that order proceeds.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the Government from depriving individuals of their “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Government may not deprive a person of one of these protected interests without providing “notice and an opportunity to respond,” or, in other words, the opportunity to present reasons not to proceed with the deprivation and have them considered.

The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad.

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

For the foregoing reasons, the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is

DENIED

[liveandletlive]

This is what happens when you get your law degree at Trump University

[tod evans]

This might get interesting..

[Origanalist]

This is what happens when you get your law degree at Trump University

Maybe he should sue.

[muh_roads]

Sweet, come on in! Just come on in!!

Now we can finally work to take the crown from Sweden & Germany and be the new rape capital of the world!

[tod evans]

Sweet, come on in! Just come on in!!

Now we can finally work to take the crown from Sweden & Germany and be the new rape capital of the world!

Raping out here in the Ozarks is generally reserved for immediate family members, no further removed than 1st cousins...

Foreigners will be shot on sight....

[TheTexan]

Isn't it only optional to obey their ruling anyway, considering Executive Privilege?

[silverhandorder]

FYI he is going to win this.

[69360]

I am ambivilent about the ban. But I think this ruling is flawed. If the judge has ruled that the 5th applies to all persons within the US, how can it apply to a non-citzen who is currently outside the us looking to enter and has never been here before. If I was scotus I would kick this back.

[Zippyjuan]

I am ambivilent about the ban. But I think this ruling is flawed. If the judge has ruled that the 5th applies to all persons within the US, how can it apply to a non-citzen who is currently outside the us looking to enter and has never been here before. If I was scotus I would kick this back.

One of the problems is that as written, there were no exceptions. No travel from those countries. Even if you had already been legally permitted to do so. Even green card holders. They have tried to back off a bit and allow some exceptions.

[charrob]

[klamath]

It was clearly a violation of the first amendment. I don't know how the SC will rule but I hope the clip the $#@! out of the executive branches wings. My only hope for this presidency is to see the presidency jerked back into balance with the other two branches of government.

[spudea]

The decision describes a constitutional right for foreign nationals to travel to the USA, protected by the due process clause. Most ridiculous thing I've ever read...

The Government has not shown that the Executive Order
provides what due process requires, such as notice and a
hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel.

[UWDude]

This is what happens when you get your law degree at Trump University

8 U.S. Code § 1182:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the US would be detrimental to US interests, he may by proclamation...suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens...or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Trump will win easily in the supreme court. It is an express power granted to the president to bar aliens he deems a threat to the United states.

Guess what you get when you fall for the media's lies and outrage?
You lose when it counts.
And you'll lose this time, too.

[Jan2017]

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

Thanks for the pdf of the decision . . . still reading over a while.

fer one thing, are suits against the President in the right jurisdiction here ?

Suits with Washington and Minnesota plaintiffs are in the Ninth Circuit Federal Court in San Francisco -
yet are against the executive of the United States defendant, so shouldn't they be in the US Court of Claims in DC ?

(stay order gets rescinded by US Supreme Court without consideration to other arguments on
the grounds that the states of Washington and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over U.S. defendant -
probably what the Federal Circuit Court should have done in the first place)

[fedupinmo]

Thanks for the pdf of the decision . . . still reading over a while.

fer one thing, are suits against the President in the right jurisdiction here ?

Suits with Washington and Minnesota plaintiffs are in the Ninth Circuit Federal Court in San Francisco -
yet are against the executive of the United States defendant, so shouldn't they be in the US Court of Claims in DC ?

(stay order gets rescinded by US Supreme Court without consideration to other arguments on
the grounds that the states of Washington and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over U.S. defendant -
probably what the Federal Circuit Court should have done in the first place)

I still haven't gotten an answer anywhere to the question on Article III, Section 2, clause 2 and how it relates to this, but it appears that the issues should go straight to the SCOTUS...

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

[Superfluous Man]

I am ambivilent about the ban. But I think this ruling is flawed. If the judge has ruled that the 5th applies to all persons within the US, how can it apply to a non-citzen who is currently outside the us looking to enter and has never been here before. If I was scotus I would kick this back.

The ruling doesn't say that it applies to any non-citizens who are currently outside the US looking to enter and have never been here before.

It says it applies to immigrants who have already been in the US and left and are trying to get back. And these people are having their 5th Amendment rights violated by Trump's EO.

[presence]

fer one thing, are suits against the President in the right jurisdiction here ?

Suits with Washington and Minnesota plaintiffs are in the Ninth Circuit Federal Court in San Francisco -
yet are against the executive of the United States defendant, so shouldn't they be in the US Court of Claims in DC ?

(stay order gets rescinded by US Supreme Court without consideration to other arguments on
the grounds that the states of Washington and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over U.S. defendant -
probably what the Federal Circuit Court should have done in the first place)

It should be noted my OP title was misleading; this is DENIAL of "stay pending appeal" not denial of appeal.

In short this means the potus filed a temporary restraining order (TRO) to allow the travel ban to stand/stay while the appeal was being fought out in the court.

the discussion on jurisdiction was here:

Appellate Jurisdiction

The States argue that we lack jurisdiction over the
Government’s stay motion because the Government’s
appeal is premature. A TRO is not ordinarily appealable.
See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 804 (9th Cir.
2002). We may nonetheless review an order styled as a TRO
if it “possesses the qualities of a preliminary injunction.”
Serv. Emps. Int’l Union v. Nat’l Union of Healthcare
Workers, 598 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010). This rule has
ordinarily required the would-be appellant to show that the
TRO was strongly challenged in adversarial proceedings
before the district court and that it has or will remain in force
for longer than the fourteen-day period identified in Federal
Rule ofCivil Procedure 65(b).

We are satisfied that in the extraordinary circumstances
of this case, the district court’s order possesses the qualities
of an appealable preliminary injunction. The parties
vigorously contested the legal basis for the TRO in written
briefs and oral arguments before the district court. The
district court’s order has no expiration date, and no hearing
has been scheduled. Although the district court has recently
scheduled briefing on the States’ motion for a preliminary
injunction, it is apparent from the district court’s scheduling
order that the TRO will remain in effect for longer than
fourteen days. In light of the unusual circumstances of this
case, in which the Government has argued that emergency
relief is necessary to support its efforts to prevent terrorism,
we believe that this period is long enough that the TRO
should be considered to have the qualities of a reviewable
preliminary injunction.

[jonhowe]

I still haven't gotten an answer anywhere to the question on Article III, Section 2, clause 2 and how it relates to this, but it appears that the issues should go straight to the SCOTUS...

Are the States parties? I thought it was the AG?

[presence]

8 U.S. Code § 1182:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the US would be detrimental to US interests, he may by proclamation...suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens...or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

US Constitution > US Code

Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

[Cleaner44]

These highly qualified judges should answer the question...
Is immigration a right or a privilege?

[Ender]

US Constitution > US Code
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

This is the difference between the terms "Lawful" and "Legal".

Something can be "Legal" but unconstitutional.

[fedupinmo]

Are the States parties? I thought it was the AG?

The AG is merely an attorney for the state.

[presence]

These highly qualified judges should answer the question...
Is immigration a right or a privilege?

subjection is a slave's only privilege

all else is your Right... in exercise your Liberty

[jonhowe]

The AG is merely an attorney for the state.

I'm aware. But the AG is involved in all kinds of litigation which isn't handled by the SCOTUS. I thought maybe it was a technical way of getting out of that clause. Otherwise every lawsuit with the word "Maryland" or "California" or "Texas" in it would be in front of them...

[TommyJeff]

It's almost as if this court didn't quite know what the constitution was as they fumble through the amendments.
I dont like courts making things up as they go, that's always a poor recipe on which future courts will feast.

[Chomp]

Immigration regulations were once in place. Terrorists, anarchists, Bolsheviks were departed back,

[euphemia]

That is very true. People who had visited certain countries were not permitted entrance to the US. Countries in Europe and similar policies.

This is not a Muslim ban. Please get the language straight. It is a 90 pause in entrance from people holding unverifiable documents from seven nations.

[Brian4Liberty]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This moratorium on immigration from specific nations does not establish a religion, or restrict or enforce the free expression of any religion within the US. On that basis alone, it does not violate the 1st.

Even if one stretches the plain language of the 1st to say that this means that a particular religion can not be part of immigration criteria, which I would argue is "living Constitution" legislation from the bench, this ban says nothing about religion, and certainly does not ban all Muslims.

[specsaregood]

This moratorium on immigration from specific nations does not establish a religion, or restrict or enforce the free expression of any religion within the US. On that basis alone, it does not violate the 1st.

Even if one stretches the plain language of the 1st to say that this means that a particular religion can not be part of immigration criteria, which I would argue is "living Constitution" legislation from the bench, this ban says nothing about religion, and certainly does not ban all Muslims.

So basically the thread title is inflammatory fake news?