Posted on Feb 14, 2017
Federal court rules against Trump’s immigration order because it discriminates against Muslims
4.19K
104
102
5
5
0
From the Volokh Conspiracy blog. A Virginia Federal Judge has issued a preliminary injunction against President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration, finding that it discriminates against Muslims in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Judge Brinkema stated in the order:
"Maximum power does not mean absolute power. Every presidential action must still comply with the limits set by Congress’ delegation of power and the constraints of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights."
Trump has yet to win a major victory in any court on his executive order.
Judge Brinkema stated in the order:
"Maximum power does not mean absolute power. Every presidential action must still comply with the limits set by Congress’ delegation of power and the constraints of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights."
Trump has yet to win a major victory in any court on his executive order.
Federal court rules against Trump’s immigration order because it discriminates against Muslims
Posted from washingtonpost.com
Law
Justice
Immigration
Office of the President (POTUS)
Constitution
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 16
9
9
0
Some have said if we lose the War on/against World Terrorism it will be because terrorist-types, foreign and domestic, have learned to use our own freedoms against US. Our downfall will not be on the battlefield, as has been shown already, but in our own courts, media, streets, and by special interest groups so intent on garnering special privilege and advantage under guise of the law, have made it possible for those who wish to destroy US to successfully and safely and undermine US.
(9)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Capt Gregory Prickett - I am aware of the origins of the quote but thank for admitting your incorrect application of it. My interpretation was broad but accurate. Yours was simply a compete misapplication of it.
You are still hanging your hat on the legal permanent resident status issue which was addressed a day or two after the EO was issued. It is no longer in play and you know it. There is nothing, zero, nada, illegal about his EO and the courts will be overturned. The president was granted this power in both the Constitution and by Congress through legally passed legislation. The only people being affected by this are those trying to enter from the 7 countries or as refugees until we can be sure they are vetted appropriately. These area non citizens and are not protected or entitled to Constitutional protection (I know you will likely want to argue that too).
There is no religious discrimination either. You simply keep tossing up the left's vapid, flaccid arguments that simply have no merit. This has become politicized to the point the courts now think they have national security power over the President. It is absurdity being hoisted upon us by judges that are overstepping their power.
You are still hanging your hat on the legal permanent resident status issue which was addressed a day or two after the EO was issued. It is no longer in play and you know it. There is nothing, zero, nada, illegal about his EO and the courts will be overturned. The president was granted this power in both the Constitution and by Congress through legally passed legislation. The only people being affected by this are those trying to enter from the 7 countries or as refugees until we can be sure they are vetted appropriately. These area non citizens and are not protected or entitled to Constitutional protection (I know you will likely want to argue that too).
There is no religious discrimination either. You simply keep tossing up the left's vapid, flaccid arguments that simply have no merit. This has become politicized to the point the courts now think they have national security power over the President. It is absurdity being hoisted upon us by judges that are overstepping their power.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Jeff N. - I'm sorry that you don't properly understand either my statement or the process. First, I did not directly quote Franklin, I stated that if we were giving up freedom or liberty for security, then we have already lost. While it is similar to what Franklin reported wrote in 1755, it wasn't a quote. Next, your statement as to the quote was incorrect - it wasn't in the later part of the 1700s and it wasn't about liberty and freedom, it was about property taxes and the Penn family. It is apparent that you either were not familiar with the origin of the quote or that you tried to misapply it.
Second, exactly where was the EO amended to show that it did not apply to LPRs? A statement from the WH counsel doesn't cut it - he has no authority to say what it does or does not mean. You keep saying that the courts will change their mind, yet judge after judge keeps ruling pretty much the exact way I've been saying that they should. That's because I'm familiar with the law and the rule of law, and I'm not basing my opinion on either a google search or the talking points of the White House.
Finally, you clearly do not understand religious freedom, and that's sad. A law professor who I highly respect laid out how the as applied claim could be made, and I have watched it play out exactly the way that she said it would. I'll take her opinion over yours every time on this.
Second, exactly where was the EO amended to show that it did not apply to LPRs? A statement from the WH counsel doesn't cut it - he has no authority to say what it does or does not mean. You keep saying that the courts will change their mind, yet judge after judge keeps ruling pretty much the exact way I've been saying that they should. That's because I'm familiar with the law and the rule of law, and I'm not basing my opinion on either a google search or the talking points of the White House.
Finally, you clearly do not understand religious freedom, and that's sad. A law professor who I highly respect laid out how the as applied claim could be made, and I have watched it play out exactly the way that she said it would. I'll take her opinion over yours every time on this.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Capt Gregory Prickett - You paraphrased a pretty famous quote and misapplied it. We (citizens) give up no liberty when we apply screening to immigrants. The security we gain from that is the type of security the government is supposed to provide, so much so, the immigration power is given to the executive in the Constitution.
One thing about attorneys, you all are certainly full of yourself You seem to think no one can read or understand law except your little club. Well, that is simply incorrect and arrogant. Some law is pretty simple, some law is complex. This falls into the simple category.
Laws are interpreted very differently by different judges and lawyers, that is why we have courts and appellate courts etc. If it were as easy as listening to one attorney or one court we wouldn't need all of the others now would we? Courts get overturned all the time. You all are not as good as you seem to think. Even the Supreme Court changes it's mind. Let's not act like you legal eagles have all of this mailed down.
I do understand religious freedom. You, based upon your posts, have very little respect or interest in religious freedom except when it fits your narrative. You blast Christianity on this very forum regularly. There is not religious freedom being infringed. First, muslims from the vast majority of the muslim world can still enter, that isn't very discriminatory is it? You can take your judge friends opinion over mine as often as you like. When this EO finally gets upheld I will look forward to you admitting you might have been hasty in your judgment.
One thing about attorneys, you all are certainly full of yourself You seem to think no one can read or understand law except your little club. Well, that is simply incorrect and arrogant. Some law is pretty simple, some law is complex. This falls into the simple category.
Laws are interpreted very differently by different judges and lawyers, that is why we have courts and appellate courts etc. If it were as easy as listening to one attorney or one court we wouldn't need all of the others now would we? Courts get overturned all the time. You all are not as good as you seem to think. Even the Supreme Court changes it's mind. Let's not act like you legal eagles have all of this mailed down.
I do understand religious freedom. You, based upon your posts, have very little respect or interest in religious freedom except when it fits your narrative. You blast Christianity on this very forum regularly. There is not religious freedom being infringed. First, muslims from the vast majority of the muslim world can still enter, that isn't very discriminatory is it? You can take your judge friends opinion over mine as often as you like. When this EO finally gets upheld I will look forward to you admitting you might have been hasty in your judgment.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Jeff N. - I absolutely did not misapply the quote. You claim that the power to control immigration is an executive branch function - where, exactly, is that granted to the executive? Let me save you some time - there are four sections in Article II, none of which deal with immigration or naturalization. No, I'm afraid your Google search led you astray here, because the Constitution gives the right to control immigration and naturalization to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.
As to religious freedom? I'm all for it, and support it completely. Do not mistake my concern over the Christian majority's attempts to legislate their morality on the rest of us as a belief that they should not be able to worship as they see fit. I'm all for people being able to worship Jesus, Vishnu, Allah, Yahweh, Baphomet, or any other imaginary deity that they want to worship. They just don't get to have the government support or endorse any religion over any other religion.
As to a final determination on the EO? If I'm wrong, I'll say I was wrong. Will you do the same or will you denigrate the justices as being activists?
As to religious freedom? I'm all for it, and support it completely. Do not mistake my concern over the Christian majority's attempts to legislate their morality on the rest of us as a belief that they should not be able to worship as they see fit. I'm all for people being able to worship Jesus, Vishnu, Allah, Yahweh, Baphomet, or any other imaginary deity that they want to worship. They just don't get to have the government support or endorse any religion over any other religion.
As to a final determination on the EO? If I'm wrong, I'll say I was wrong. Will you do the same or will you denigrate the justices as being activists?
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Did you honestly expect the 9th circuit court to rule in his favor? The court has an 80% overturn rate by the supreme court, once Trump's SCOTUS nominee is in they'll appeal and win there. How any judge can think to use campaign promises against a president in a court of law is dumbfounding.
(7)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
MAJ (Join to see) - are you aware how the system works? The circuit with the best record still gets overturned about 50% of the time. Look, I get that you don't understand how the legal system works, but the Ninth isn't the worst circuit anymore, nor has it been for at least five years. You know, I can Google stuff too, but I can also evaluate what I find based on the date it was published.
Next, no circuit is really overturned all that much. Each circuit hears about 10-12K cases a year, and SCOTUS agrees to hear a minimal number of cases. I don't know why you believe that having 10 to 20 cases heard by the Supreme Court in a year is significant number - it means that over 99% of the time, their decision is not touched.
Next, no circuit is really overturned all that much. Each circuit hears about 10-12K cases a year, and SCOTUS agrees to hear a minimal number of cases. I don't know why you believe that having 10 to 20 cases heard by the Supreme Court in a year is significant number - it means that over 99% of the time, their decision is not touched.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
And go with the default democratic logic to personally attack those who don't agree with you. Give it some time and we'll see how it ends up.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
MAJ (Join to see) - stating the truth and the facts are not a personal attack.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I get that you don't understand how a debate works, so I'll lay out what an ad hominem attack is....
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Everyone that is fo0llowing this discussion thread - I would advise everyone to get a grip on their restraining device. Did you read the preliminary injunction that is linked in the article, or did you take it on faith about what is being said?
I am no lawyer and to be honest, I do not want to be one. The linked injunction does not say what everyone thinks it says; and it is in plain English. Here is the gist of it:
ORDERED that respondents, and all officers, agents, and employees of the Executive
Branch of the United States government, and anyone acting under their authorization or direction be and are ENJOINED from enforcing § 3(c) of Executive Order 13,769 against any person who has a Virginia residence or is employed by or attends an educational institution administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and who, as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday, January 27, 2017, was lawfully admitted for permanent residency in the United States, held an immigrant visa that would entitle the bearer to be lawfully admitted for permanent residency upon admission to the United States, held a valid student visa (or accompanying family or spousal visa), or held a valid work visa (or accompanying family or spousal visa); and it is further
ORDERED that nothing in this Order affects the statutes or regulations relating to immigration in effect before Executive Order 13,769 went into effect; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commonwealth of Virginia is not required to deposit a security.
To go further for those of you that do not click links because you are too damn lazy and too lazy and incompetent to read, here is the specific section and paragraph referenced in the injunction:
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
Though the supporting 'Memorandum Opinion' rambles on primarily about the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as justification for this injunction, those issues were not addressed by the order, because the relevant section and paragraph in the EO was not ENJOINED. Specifically almost the entirety of Section 5, but more so Sec. 5 (e) and Sec. 5 (f). And for those of you that are plain lazy:
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
So by the time this winds it's way through the court system, it will be a moot point. Now as far as the 9th Circuits position on Judge Robart's current injunction, I do not know because I have not read those yet. Only what is easily accessible. I have not yet figured out how to access the appropriate documents, yet.
1stSgt Glenn Brackin SSgt Christopher Brose Cpl Craig Marton MAJ (Join to see) SCPO Jason McLaughlin GySgt William Hardy Capt Tom Brown SSG(P) Ryan, R. SSgt Boyd Herrst Mary Burchard Pikula Cpl Jeff N. PVT James Strait Cpl Joshua Caldwell CPO (Join to see)
[Edited to remove LRs from post.][Edited to correct the following statement - Though the supporting 'Memorandum Opinion' rambles on primarily about the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as justification for this injunction, because the relevant section and paragraph in the EO was not ENJOINED.]
I am no lawyer and to be honest, I do not want to be one. The linked injunction does not say what everyone thinks it says; and it is in plain English. Here is the gist of it:
ORDERED that respondents, and all officers, agents, and employees of the Executive
Branch of the United States government, and anyone acting under their authorization or direction be and are ENJOINED from enforcing § 3(c) of Executive Order 13,769 against any person who has a Virginia residence or is employed by or attends an educational institution administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and who, as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday, January 27, 2017, was lawfully admitted for permanent residency in the United States, held an immigrant visa that would entitle the bearer to be lawfully admitted for permanent residency upon admission to the United States, held a valid student visa (or accompanying family or spousal visa), or held a valid work visa (or accompanying family or spousal visa); and it is further
ORDERED that nothing in this Order affects the statutes or regulations relating to immigration in effect before Executive Order 13,769 went into effect; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commonwealth of Virginia is not required to deposit a security.
To go further for those of you that do not click links because you are too damn lazy and too lazy and incompetent to read, here is the specific section and paragraph referenced in the injunction:
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
Though the supporting 'Memorandum Opinion' rambles on primarily about the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as justification for this injunction, those issues were not addressed by the order, because the relevant section and paragraph in the EO was not ENJOINED. Specifically almost the entirety of Section 5, but more so Sec. 5 (e) and Sec. 5 (f). And for those of you that are plain lazy:
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
So by the time this winds it's way through the court system, it will be a moot point. Now as far as the 9th Circuits position on Judge Robart's current injunction, I do not know because I have not read those yet. Only what is easily accessible. I have not yet figured out how to access the appropriate documents, yet.
1stSgt Glenn Brackin SSgt Christopher Brose Cpl Craig Marton MAJ (Join to see) SCPO Jason McLaughlin GySgt William Hardy Capt Tom Brown SSG(P) Ryan, R. SSgt Boyd Herrst Mary Burchard Pikula Cpl Jeff N. PVT James Strait Cpl Joshua Caldwell CPO (Join to see)
[Edited to remove LRs from post.][Edited to correct the following statement - Though the supporting 'Memorandum Opinion' rambles on primarily about the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as justification for this injunction, because the relevant section and paragraph in the EO was not ENJOINED.]
(4)
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
Actually it was addressed to the original question. I have read the entire EO and because the same actions have been taken before and not really challenged, I see this as more of a political ploy and it is showing the worse in politics.
Depending on what you want to believe about previous laws and judgments that have been handed down, there are several ways to take this. If you hate what Trump does, then the various ideas of discrimination, etc., are all going to be used and to the advantage of the left. If you look at this from the standpoint of a 90 day stay so that the administration can get a handle on things to protect the American people, you have no problem. No one here is getting rounded up and locked up. The EO could have been written better so that it was clear that previous approvals for travel here are OK but it puts a 90 day stop to new requests, some of the arguments could have been avoided.
Depending on what you want to believe about previous laws and judgments that have been handed down, there are several ways to take this. If you hate what Trump does, then the various ideas of discrimination, etc., are all going to be used and to the advantage of the left. If you look at this from the standpoint of a 90 day stay so that the administration can get a handle on things to protect the American people, you have no problem. No one here is getting rounded up and locked up. The EO could have been written better so that it was clear that previous approvals for travel here are OK but it puts a 90 day stop to new requests, some of the arguments could have been avoided.
(1)
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
Full Executive Order Text: Trump’s Action Limiting Refugees Into the U.S.
The White House released the language of the executive order that President Trump signed on Friday at the Pentagon.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
GySgt William Hardy - Are you posting the NY Times item for the text of the EO? If so, I would suggest posting the link to the text at the whitehouse.gov site as opposed to a 'copy' at a news site.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
GySgt William Hardy - Thank you for the clarification. Next time please post in the appropriate part of the discussion thread. Thank you.
Next, from your latest comment, it appears that you did not read my statement or did not understand it, if you read it, please read it again. I do agree that the EO could have been better written, but I also think that SJWs within the government deliberately botched it, so that it would come to this point. What I find ludicrous though is that the headline in the original linked article purports that the injunction was against Section 5 of the EO, when in reality it is not - that is my point.
Next, from your latest comment, it appears that you did not read my statement or did not understand it, if you read it, please read it again. I do agree that the EO could have been better written, but I also think that SJWs within the government deliberately botched it, so that it would come to this point. What I find ludicrous though is that the headline in the original linked article purports that the injunction was against Section 5 of the EO, when in reality it is not - that is my point.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google