harris campaign, clean up on aisle Electoral College

[rooster59]

U.S. appeals to higher court over ruling against Trump's revised travel ban

By Mica Rosenberg

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., March 17, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. government took the legal battle over President Donald Trump's travel ban to a higher court on Friday, saying it would appeal against a federal judge's decision that struck down parts of the ban on the day it was set to go into effect.

The Department of Justice said in a court filing it would appeal against a ruling by U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

On Thursday, Chuang issued an emergency halt to the portion of Trump's March 6 executive order temporarily banning the entry of travelers from six Muslim-majority countries. He left in place the section of the order that barred the entry of refugees to the United States for four months.

Another federal judge in Hawaii struck down both sections of the ban in a broader court ruling that prevented Trump's order from moving forward.

In Washington state, where the ban is also being challenged, U.S. District Court Judge James Robart put a stay on proceedings for as long as the Hawaii court's nationwide temporary restraining order remained in place, to "conserve resources" and avoid inconsistent and duplicate rulings.

The decisions came in response to lawsuits brought by states' attorneys general in Hawaii and refugee resettlement agencies in Maryland who were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center.

Detractors argue the ban discriminated against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom. Trump says the measure is necessary for national security to protect the country from terrorist attacks.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told a media briefing the government would "vigorously defend this executive order" and appeal against the "flawed rulings."

The Department of Justice filed a motion late on Friday night seeking clarification of Hawaii’s ruling before appealing to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The 9th Circuit court last month upheld a decision by Judge Robart that halted an original, more sweeping travel ban signed by the President on Jan. 27 in response to a lawsuit filed by Washington state.

The new executive order was reissued with the intention of overcoming the legal concerns.

Trump has vowed to take the fight all the way to U.S. Supreme Court.

The 4th Circuit is known as a more conservative court compared to the 9th Circuit, said Buzz Frahn, an attorney at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett who has been tracking the litigation nationwide.

"The government is probably thinking that the 4th Circuit ... would lend a friendlier ear to its arguments," he said.

Judges have said they were willing to look behind the text of the order, which does not mention Islam, to probe the motivation for enacting the ban, Frahn said. Trump promised during the election campaign to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently split 4-4 between liberals and conservatives, with Trump's pick for the high court - appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch - still awaiting confirmation.

Hans von Spakovsky, from the Washington D.C.-based Heritage Foundation, said the Department of Justice might want to time their appeals to reach the Supreme Court after Gorsuch is confirmed. He said the court would be likely to hear the case.

"They will take it because of its national importance," Spakovsky said.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-18

[darksidedog]

"White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told a media briefing the government would "vigorously defend this executive order" and appeal against the "flawed rulings."

Flawed rulings? So Mr. Spicer is now a legal expert too, who can tell the difference between good and bad rulings better than a judge? Amazing!

I note also that the Appeals location has been carefully selected to give them a more friendly reception and a better chance of winning.

If the case is so strong, they should not need to do that. They should follow the path through the 9th circuit as before and rely on the law, not on a more conservative court.

 

[louse1953]

Spicer wont last the year out.He wont know if he is Arthur or Martha and they will have to lock him in a padded cell for a while.

[atyclb]

7 hours ago, darksidedog said:

"White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told a media briefing the government would "vigorously defend this executive order" and appeal against the "flawed rulings."

Flawed rulings? So Mr. Spicer is now a legal expert too, who can tell the difference between good and bad rulings better than a judge? Amazing!

I note also that the Appeals location has been carefully selected to give them a more friendly reception and a better chance of winning.

If the case is so strong, they should not need to do that. They should follow the path through the 9th circuit as before and rely on the law, not on a more conservative court.

 

without taking sides it is likely the press secretary is just passing on info-opinion from lawyers.

 

politics is politics and whatever side is trying to get something done will try in the most favorable way to them.

[Traveler19491]

Even though this so-called administration is choosing to fight the halt in a more conservative court, it is still unlikely that they will prevail. One thing that virtually all justices at the appellate level are noted for is their refusal to inject political ideology into their decisions. Their individual biases toward either conservatism or liberalism will influence their thinking, but they are far from ideologues and rely on their understanding of the Constitution to determine their decision. Where I believe this appeal will fail is on the intent of the ban, and to determine that they will look at past statements from Trump and his many minions both pre- and post-election, all of which vividly demonstrate a religious bias. All during the election season Trump repeatedly insisted that a ban would be placed on "all Muslims" entering the country and even, at one point during an interview with a so-called Christian radio host, stated that Christian refugee applicants would be given preferential treatment over Muslims (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316586-trump-persecuted-christian-refugees-are-priority). Even as recently as Feb. 21, Stephen Miller asserted that nothing was wrong with the first ban (which was halted for reasons of religious discrimination), handing the court even more ammunition with which to uphold the lower court's ruling (http://www.salon.com/2017/02/22/stephen-miller-admits-the-new-executive-order-on-immigration-ban-is-same-as-the-old/). The fact is that these bans have been enacted on the basis of religious affiliation and therefore fail the First Amendment test. It is possible that this one might squeak past the 4th Circuit, but I'll be surprised if it does.