Judges In Seattle and Boston Reach Opposing Opinions On Trump Executive Order

washington-westernmassdcThe controversy over the Trump immigration executive order has already produced sharply conflicting orders from courts in Washington state and Massachusetts. A judge in Seattle has issued a temporary restraining order nationwide over the executive order while a judge in Boston declined to do so. Such divergent results are not uncommon in such controversies. However, as I have previously explained, I believe that the law favors the Administration despite good-faith arguments advanced by the challengers. Moreover, even if courts strike down a portion of the executive order, it is likely that other portions will be upheld on review. While I have been very critical of the order (and how it was rolled out), I still believe that the weight of binding authority on these trial courts favors President Trump.  We should get an answer sooner than expected: the Administration has decided to ask for an emergency order from the Ninth Circuit to block the Seattle court.  In the meantime, the airlines have been told to start to allow people on planes to the United States and the Justice Department is apparently not filing the emergency motion tonight. That means that people will start to arrive before the Justice Department files.  It could look a bit curious that the Administration is claiming a national security danger in these entries but would wait to file the emergency motion.

District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton in Massachusetts issued his decision on Friday and found that the president had the authority to issue the executive order.  Gorton wrote “While this Court is sympathetic to the difficult personal circumstances in which these plaintiffs find themselves, if they choose to leave the country, as nonresident aliens, they have no right to re-enter.”

The order from the Western District of Washington did not contain any legal analysis or explanation. Rather U.S. District Court Senior Judge James L. Robart stated that he would release an opinion at a later date. Nevertheless, the order granting a temporary restraining order was a clear victory for challengers. To prevail, a party seeking “must establish that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and that [a temporary restraining order] is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). On top of that demanding standard, courts tend to be more exacting when an order targets the exercise of a core executive function. Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950, 954-55 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (requiring “an extraordinarily strong showing” when an order would “deeply intrude[] into the core concerns of the executive branch.”). Moreover, Judge Robart’s recognition of the right of the state attorney general to bring the case is itself controversial given prior standing rulings.

Ironically, Democratic attorneys general are seeking the ability to sue over precedent established not by President Trump but President Obama. The Obama Administration argued for years that a president had virtually unchecked authority at our borders and specifically that states like Arizona did not have the right to interfere or countermand federal immigration policies. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2502 (2012). The case law heavily disfavors a state from bringing a parens patriae action on behalf of citizens, let alone non-citizens. Moreover, the complaint by the Washington Attorney General advanced highly speculative claims of injury given (1) the exemption of green card holders, (2) the temporary character of the order; and (3) the loose claims of reduction in tourism and student visas. The complaint states that the order affords the state standing due to its

“separating Washington families, harming thousands of Washington residents, damaging Washington’s economy, hurting Washington-based companies, and undermining Washington’s sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming place for immigrants and refugees.”

Putting aside injury, there remains the question of the likelihood of prevailing given the statutory and case authority favoring executive power in this area. As previously discussed, Section 1182 (f) expressly allows a president to exclude individual aliens or groups of aliens when the Administration determines that entry of such aliens or class of aliens would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The Ninth Circuit (which covers Seattle and issues cases that are binding on Judge Robart) has held that “that statute specifically grants the President, where it is in the national interest to do so, the extreme power to prevent the entry of any alien or groups of aliens into this country as well as the lesser power to grant entry to such person or persons with any restriction on their entry as he may deem to be appropriate.” Mow Sun Wong v. Campbell, 626 F.2d 739, 744 n.9 (9th Cir. 1980).

Challengers rely on 8 U.S.C. §1152 (a) (1) (A), which states that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” I have previously raised concerns about the sweeping claims made under this amendment which was part of an effort to end the use of numerical quotas that favored certain parts of Europe. On its face, the provision would not impact much of the executive order since it deals only with the issuance of visas and does not on its face apply to refugees or nonimmigrant visas. Moreover, the law was later amended to exclude changes in “procedures” even for those seeking immigrant visas. Section 1152(a)(1)(B) states that the law shall not be “construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed.” That sounds a lot like an order temporarily suspending entries “to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States” and then “implement such additional procedures.” Executive Order § 5 (a).

If Section 1152 and 1182 present a possible conflict, a court is supposed to adopt that interpretation that avoid the conflict. California ex rel. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1012 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, the degree to which this provision limits the executive power can itself produce a constitutional challenge . . . from the executive branch. I previously discussed cases like United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) and the Court recognition of plenary authority of the executive over foreign relations and our borders. The Court has specifically held that “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty . . . inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950).

Part of the difficulty of the challenger’s reading of future law is that it would prove too much. Specifically, it would mean that past actions by both presidents and Congress would be unlawful. It would suggest that, when a president finds that there is a danger related to entries from a particularly country, the president cannot suspend entries from that country. Yet, that is precisely what has happened in the past. In 1986, President Reagan suspended entry of Cuban nationals as immigrants into the United States, subject to certain exceptions. See Suspension of Cuban Immigration, 1986 WL 796773 (Aug. 22, 1986). In 1996, President Clinton suspended entry of members of the Government of Sudan, officials of that Government, and members of the Sudanese armed forces as immigrants or nonimmigrants into the United States. See Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who Are Members or Officials of the Sudanese Government or Armed Forces, 1996 WL 33673860 (Nov. 22, 1996). The Justice Department noted in its brief before Judge Robart that both Congress and President Obama made such nationality based determinations to exclude groups of aliens:

“Congress likewise has expressly drawn distinctions based on nationality. For example, in 2015, Congress amended the INA to exclude certain individuals from a visa waiver program (i.e., the ability to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant without a visa) on the basis of nationality. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242, 2990 (2015) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)). Congress expressly excluded nationals of Iraq and Syria from the program, see 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)(A)(ii), and created a process by which the Secretary of Homeland Security could designate additional “Countries or areas of concern,” for exclusion of a country’s nationals. See id. § 1187(a)(12)(D). As of February 2016, the exclusion applied to nationals of Iraq and Syria (pursuant to the statute’s plain text), as well as nationals of Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen (pursuant to Executive Branch designations under the statutory scheme). See Dep’t of Homeland Sec., DHS Announces Further Travel Restrictions for the Visa Waiver Program (Feb. 18, 2016). These seven countries excluded from the visa waiver program are the same seven countries that are covered by Section 3 of the President’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order. See Executive Order § 3(c) (incorporating by reference “countries referred to in section 217 (a) (12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187 (a) (12).”

None of this means that the challenges to the Executive Order are frivolous or that parts of the Executive Order could not be struck down. However, the weight of existing case law favors the Administration in my view. Courts are bound to avoid conflicts when possible in the interpretation of two laws and further interpret laws to avoid conflicts with constitutional powers. Moreover, they have a long-standing commitment to minimize the extent to which they find parts of a law unconstitutional. The result is that the odds still rest with the Administration in preserving all or part of the law, particularly after exercising its discretion to exempt green card holders.

122 thoughts on “Judges In Seattle and Boston Reach Opposing Opinions On Trump Executive Order

  1. A judge in Seattle has issued a temporary restraining order nationwide over the executive order

    And the administration should simply ignore him. He’s a federal district judge with a discrete jurisdiction.

      • Huh??? A Democratic Liberal preaching about the rule of law??? Seriously? After the Berkeley riots, and all the campuses that threaten conservative speakers??? After the “sanctuary cities”, and the ones who say they intend to not comply with the law in the future???

        My God, but you have a lot of nerve! Not much sense, but a lot of nerve.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        • I have been pro-immigrant my entire life. It need not be a partisan issue.The judge is a republican. Many democrats and independents agree with this republican judge.

          • Tell us how you know this judge is a Republican? Simply because George Bush nominated him? If you believe that then you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You know nothing about how vacancies on federal district courts are filled. Again. It’s quite common for US Senators to recommend candidates for district court vacancies in their states. Senators from both parties, and the Senators for Washington are the Democrats Murray and Cantwell. It’s at least as likely Robart is a Democrat as a Republican.

            http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/in-tongue-lashing-federal-judge-wont-let-guild-hold-police-reform-hostage/

            “U.S. District Judge James Robart, pointedly reacting to the Seattle police union’s rejection of a tentative contract, said Monday he would not let the powerful labor group hold the city “hostage” by linking wages to constitutional policing.

            “To hide behind a collective- bargaining agreement is not going to work,” Robart said during a dramatic court hearing he opened by laying out a path for police-accountability reform and closed with an emotional declaration that “black lives matter.”…”

            Since you don’t know basic facts, and are clearly intent on remaining ignorant of them, why should anybody care what you say?

            • Confirmed, Swarthmore Granny. You don’t know basic facts, you are clearly intent on remaining ignorant of them, and now the question has been answered the question. No one should care about what you have to say.

              http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/a-strange-ruling-from-a-strange-judge.php

              ” Robart’s appointment as a federal judge was championed by liberal Senators like Patty Murray, who used Senatorial custom allowing senators to veto Presidential appointments of trial judges to obtain the appointment of liberal trial judges like Robart in Washington State. An April 13, 2005 press release by Murray touts Robart’s appointment as the “bipartisan” result of using a state commission to select federal trial judges in Washington, whose appointment Bush then rubberstamped.

              This Senatorial veto power, known as the “blue slip,” is an old tradition, dating back to at least 1917, that lets senators have a say on which trial judges are appointed to courts in their home state.”

              This was Murray’s choice, not Bush’s. Bush had no choice in the matter.

              But I have no doubt you’ll continue to chime in on things you no nothing about. You always do.

    • You do realize this judge just made that up. Foreign nationals residing overseas whose only connection to the United States is that they have applied for entry have no Constitutional rights.

      Funny how you leftists are so scared that Trump might destroy the rule of law are fine when a judge does it to arrive at a conclusion you agree with.

      You really out to stop pretending your hyperpartisanship has anything to do with principle. Anybody can see through the hypocrisy.

      • Excellent…the judge’s position is that I really don’t have a right to my country. The US Gov’t is simply a facilitator and enforcer of globalist open borders. Amazingly corrupt gov’t. and a significant percentage of the population.

      • Speaking of hypocrisy, “Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.” – Mike Pence (December 8, 2015). You conservative warmongers in pressed khakis can’t get the lie quite consistent enough to fool everyone..

        • You can’t either. Conservatives are the one’s IN power trying to stay there and liberals are the one’s OUT of power trying to get in power. The rest is just regressive bull shit reframing and redefining piled up to theheights of a Quebecois manure pile in Canada. Except manure is useful and regressive BS is worthless.

          Who the hell did your programming today – a stand in? Wasserman, Huma? They didn’t get the tongue jack and the ear plug seated properly. Or they haven’t cleaned the USB end or maybe are using an XT to save money?

        • The lie is that this was a “Muslim Ban.” Had it been, everyone from Morocco to Indonesia would have been outraged by it. But since a lot of Muslim countries from Morocco to Indonesia won’t let people from Obama’s list of countries of special concern in either, just like Trump, Trump was getting support from these Muslim countries.

          Not that you won’t continue to lie and call it a “Muslim Ban.”

    • Point is we have to vet our judicial selections more carefully. But then Bush is a RINO lapdog of the left. All of the following belong to President Trump and the Constitutional Republic movement

      , the nominee (if applicable), and the nomination date. Valid as of today

      Vacancies in the Federal Judiciary

      115th Congress

      Last updated on02/04/2017

      Total Vacancies:118 Read it and Weep.

      Total Nominees Pending:1
      01 – MA Woodlock,Douglas P. Senior 06/01/2015
      01 – PR Fuste,Jose Antonio Retired 06/01/2016
      01 – RI Lisi,Mary M. Senior 10/01/2015
      02 – CCA Lynch,Gerard E. Senior 09/05/2016
      02 – CCA Wesley,Richard C. Senior 08/01/2016
      02 – CT Chatigny,Robert N. Senior 01/01/2017
      02 – NY-E Gleeson,John Resigned 03/09/2016
      02 – NY-E Amon,Carol Bagley Senior 11/30/2016
      02 – NY-E Feuerstein,Sandra J. Senior 01/21/2015
      02 – NY-N Sharpe,Gary L. Senior 01/01/2016
      02 – NY-S Crotty,Paul A. Senior 08/01/2015
      02 – NY-W Skretny,William M. Senior 03/08/2015
      03 – CCA Fuentes,Julio M. Senior 07/18/2016
      03 – CCA Rendell,Marjorie O. Senior 07/01/2015
      03 – CCA Fisher,D. Michael Senior 02/01/2017
      03 – DE Robinson,Sue L. Senior 02/03/2017
      03 – NJ Hochberg,Faith S. Retired 03/06/2015
      03 – NJ Martini,William J. Senior 02/10/2015
      03 – PA-E Restrepo,Luis Felipe Elevated 01/11/2016
      03 – PA-E McLaughlin,Mary A. Senior 11/18/2013
      03 – PA-W Lancaster,Gary L. Deceased 04/24/2013
      03 – PA-W McLaughlin,Sean J. Resigned 08/16/2013
      03 – PA-W McVerry,Terrence F. Senior 09/30/2013
      03 – PA-W Gibson,Kim R. Senior 06/03/2016
      04 – MD Quarles Jr.,William D. Retired 02/01/2016
      04 – NC-E Howard,Malcolm J. Senior 12/31/2005
      04 – SC Currie,Cameron McGowan Senior 10/03/2013
      04 – SC Anderson Jr.,Joseph F. Senior 11/16/2014
      05 – CCA Davis,W. Eugene Senior 12/31/2016
      05 – CCA Garza,Emilio M. Senior 08/01/2012
      05 – CCA King,Carolyn Dineen Senior 12/31/2013
      05 – LA-E Berrigan,Helen G. Senior 08/23/2016
      05 – LA-E Lemelle,Ivan L. Senior 06/29/2015
      05 – LA-W Haik,Richard T. Senior 03/06/2015
      05 – LA-W James,Robert G. Senior 05/31/2016
      05 – TX-E Davis,Leonard E. Retired 05/15/2015
      05 – TX-E Schneider,Michael H. Senior 01/07/2016
      05 – TX-E Schell,Richard A. Senior 03/10/2015
      05 – TX-N Cummings,Samuel Ray Senior 12/31/2014
      05 – TX-N Means,Terry Senior 07/03/2013
      05 – TX-N Robinson,Mary Lou Senior 02/03/2016
      05 – TX-N Solis,Jorge A. Retired 05/01/2016
      05 – TX-S Jack,Janis Graham Senior 06/01/2011
      05 – TX-S Costa,Gregg Jeffrey Elevated 05/20/2014
      05 – TX-W Smith Jr.,Walter S. Retired 09/14/2016
      05 – TX-W Junell,Robert A. Senior 02/13/2015
      06 – CCA Martin Jr.,Boyce F. Retired 08/16/2013
      06 – KY-E Coffman,Jennifer B. Retired 01/08/2013
      06 – KY-W Heyburn II,John G. Senior 04/01/2014
      06 – MI-E Rosen,Gerald E. Senior 10/26/2016
      06 – MI-W Bell,Robert Holmes Senior 01/31/2017
      06 – OH-N Nugent,Donald C. Senior 01/01/2017
      06 – OH-S Frost,Gregory L. Retired 05/02/2016
      06 – TN-M Campbell,Todd J. Senior 12/01/2016
      06 – TN-W Mays Jr.,Samuel H. Senior 07/01/2015
      07 – CCA Evans,Terence T. Senior 01/07/2010
      07 – CCA Tinder,John Daniel Senior 02/18/2015
      07 – IL-N Zagel,James B. Senior 10/21/2016
      07 – IN-N Miller Jr.,Robert L. Senior 01/11/2016
      07 – IN-S Barker,Sarah Evans Senior 06/30/2014
      07 – WI-E Randa,Rudolph T. Senior 02/05/2016
      08 – CCA Bye,Kermit Edward Senior 04/22/2015
      08 – CCA Murphy,Diana E. Senior 11/29/2016
      08 – MN Montgomery,Ann D. Senior 05/31/2016
      08 – MN Frank,Donovan W. Senior 10/31/2016
      09 – AK Beistline,Ralph R. Senior 12/31/2015
      09 – AZ Wake,Neil Vincent Senior 07/05/2016
      09 – AZ Bolton,Susan R. Senior 09/01/2016
      09 – CA-C Morrow,Margaret M. Senior 10/29/2015
      09 – CA-C Pregerson,Dean D. Senior 01/28/2016
      09 – CA-C King,George H. Retired 01/06/2017
      09 – CA-C Collins,Audrey B. Retired 08/01/2014
      09 – CA-C Snyder,Christina A. Senior 11/23/2016
      09 – CA-S Huff,Marilyn L. Senior 09/30/2016
      09 – CCA Silverman,Barry G. Senior 10/11/2016
      09 – CCA Pregerson,Harry Senior 12/11/2015
      09 – CCA O’Scannlain,Diarmuid F. Senior 12/31/2016
      09 – CCA Clifton,Richard R. Senior 12/31/2016
      09 – HI Mollway,Susan Oki Senior 11/06/2015
      09 – ID Lodge,Edward J. Senior 07/03/2015
      09 – NV Jones,Robert Clive Senior 02/01/2016
      09 – WA-W Robart,James L. Senior 06/28/2016
      09 – WA-W Pechman,Marsha J. Senior 02/06/2016
      09 – WA-W Lasnik,Robert S. Senior 01/27/2016
      10 – CO Blackburn,Robert E. Senior 04/12/2016
      10 – KS Vratil,Kathryn H. Senior 04/22/2014
      10 – OK-W Russell,David L. Senior 07/07/2013
      10 – OK-W Cauthron,Robin J. Senior 07/14/2015
      10 – OK-W Friot,Stephen P. Senior 12/01/2014
      10 – UT Stewart,Brian T. Senior 09/01/2014
      11 – AL-M Fuller,Mark E. Resigned 08/01/2015
      11 – AL-M Thompson,Myron H. Senior 08/22/2013
      11 – AL-N Smith Jr.,C. Lynwood Senior 08/31/2013
      11 – AL-N Blackburn,Sharon Lovelace Senior 05/08/2015
      11 – AL-S Granade,Callie V.S. Senior 03/07/2016
      11 – CCA Dubina,Joel F. Senior 10/26/2013
      11 – FL-M Conway,Anne C. Senior 08/01/2015
      11 – FL-M Steele,John E. Senior 06/03/2015
      11 – FL-N Smoak,Richard Senior 12/31/2015
      11 – FL-N Hinkle,Robert L. Senior 11/07/2016
      11 – FL-S Rosenbaum,Robin S. Elevated 05/12/2014
      11 – FL-S Zloch,William J. Senior 01/31/2017
      11 – FL-S Cohn,James I. Senior 08/05/2016
      11 – GA-M Royal,Charles Ashley Senior 09/01/2016
      11 – GA-N Carnes,Julie E. Elevated 07/21/2014
      CL Hewitt,Emily C. Retired 10/21/2013
      CL Damich,Edward J. Senior 10/21/2013
      CL Bush,Lynn J. Senior 10/21/2013
      CL Firestone,Nancy B. Senior 10/21/2013
      CL Miller,George W. Retired 08/06/2013
      CL Block,Lawrence J. Retired 01/08/2016
      DC – DC Walton,Reggie B. Senior 12/31/2015
      DC – DC Leon,Richard J. Senior 12/31/2016
      DC – DC Roberts,Richard W. Senior 03/16/2016
      DC – DC Collyer,Rosemary M. Senior 05/18/2016
      IT Pogue,Donald C. Senior 07/01/2014
      IT Eaton,Richard K. Senior 08/22/2014
      SC Scalia,Antonin Deceased 02/13/2016

      You need to learn BOHICA and how to check the sand for vaseline.

      • Morrow, Pregerson, King and Collins in the 9th. Fuller in the 11th, Martin and Coffman in the 6th, Smith, Costa, Solis, in the 5th, Lancaster, MacLaughlin, Hochberg in the 3rd, Gleeson in the 2nd, Fuste, Woodstock in the 1st

        And thats just the beginning. Hewitt, Miller, Block CL to round it out 15 plus 4 All up for grabs If you are a Constitutinalist.

  2. Still don’t understand how a low ranking local federal judge can stopper a whole nation. Can the same person stop a military action or the recent change in Social Security limits simply with an edict?

    • Depends some are sent to one Judge some to a panel of three some to the whole circuit court. President nominates, Senate Confirms, Judicial branch sets up the rest of the judicial system. Representatives do the funding. Checks and balances.

      • Michael Aarethun – there could be a plus side to California seceding or breaking into two states. They would finally have to divide the Ninth Circuit. Maybe AZ could be in a more conservative Circuit.

  3. The other way is do an expansion of the national leader rule that Carter hid behind. Any National Leader who is also a uniformed member of the military is a target. So any preacher of whatever religion who is also a national leader and uses religion as a form of government is a target. Yes that does target a form of religion. But that’s where you find the Hydra’s Heads.

  4. Homeland Security
    (@DHSgov)
    Re judge’s ruling on EO: DHS personnel will resume inspection of travelers per standard policy and procedure. (3/3) go.usa.gov/x96Aq The ban has been suspended and the Dept of Homeland Security appears to be in compliance with the judge’s order.

    • Then other than a suspension of the Judges Obama imitation it’s time for both the appeal AND Phase II. What countries are on the list next and…oh yes….now the State Department has to be vetted on their vetting procedures before they can issue any more unvetted visas. Question for our new SecState to ask his subordinates. How do you vet people with no papers from a country with no paperwork?

      This oughta be good. SCREEEEECHHHHHH. The brakes go on but…those are the breaks!

  5. When the President is on his last few months he is termed a “Lame Duck”. Yet when new guy comes into office he has inherited the last duck’s staff in all the various agencies. So, new guy is a lame duck until his new Attorney General can revamp the staff. Right now we still have Obama people in place.
    Slowboat to China right now is not Trump’s fault.

    • It’s also the former President’s Budget. Until September 30th midnight. These people haven’t figured out that’s one of the ways Bubba Butt Boy balanced the budget? The other was getting massive roll overs on T Bills short term high interest thus transferring the debt forward. Among other cutesy little tricks. We still don’t know how much Obama contracted to buy in terms of more inflation and devaluation producing loans. Really we don’t much at all especially when the Congress signed it without reading it? Why? Hadn’t been written yet. so yes you are right it’s an uphill battle and at first the emphasis is keeping campaign promises and draining the swamp of as much of the slime like Yates as is possible and then handing out pink slips on Oct 1st with the new budget. First step is cut all the pork going to Democrat districts especially NY and California They don’t have enough power in the Representative house and a lot of easily grabbed seats for those that replace them with IDC breakaways.

      Sound Deguello! Let’s see Shumer is NY State, Pelosi is what district in California? and the shaky Republicvans or rather RINOs are on notice too.

      We got the main batch and now we’re coming after the rest of you.

      Other than that life is great in the moderate Center of this fine Constitutional Republic.

      • How much Pork does Napa County California rake in every year anyway. Excuse me DID rake in.,,,

        hell here’s the list of the targets it’s enough with a moderate 10% per annum cut in federal jobs to damn near really balance the budget and these are just over supporting criminals who are also illegals.

        California (in addition to all counties)
        Alameda County
        Berkley
        Contra Costa County
        Los Angeles County
        Los Angeles
        Monterey County
        Napa County
        Orange County (Sheriff and Probation Department)
        Riverside County
        Sacramento County
        San Bernardino County
        San Diego County
        San Francisco County
        San Mateo County
        Santa Clara County
        Santa Cruz County
        Sonoma County

        New York
        Franklin County
        Nassau County
        New York City
        Onondaga County
        Rensselaer County
        Saratoga County
        Suffolk County
        St. Lawrence County
        Wayne County

        Personally I wonder if Pelosi and Schumers dicks are long enough to get in a pissing contest. Somehow I doubt it.

        Hope you voters remememer that. Thats your target list.

    • Did the Seattle Judge notice the dirty water and trace it back to the overflow from the a. sewage treatment plants during the rainy or snow melt seasons and the amount of fines the city and/or county was charged for the overflows of b. quantity of sewage overflow and the cost compared to enlarging the treatment facilities d. over the cost of the corrected ability or e. upgrade cost. and ask WHY did the money paid as fines to State and Federal EPA not used to correct the problem and F. why were the citizens subjected to raw sewage in the Puget Sound….and why was a culprit chosen and for what purpose G and H. namely those who lived aboard boats instead of houses etc. etc. etc.

      What’s the point? The Judge didn’t care about problems other than those he was compelled to notice or did not affect him personally I. and thus K. failed in his duty by breathing clean air (he hoped) while water was pissed on by the sewage problem which in Seattle was an annual event.

      What’s the real point. Looking at Seattle and seeing a beautiful clean green city you failed, as did the Judge to see it as a city beset with cancerous sores just beneath the surface.

      That metaphor applies to Seattle in a number of ways.

      Real Purpose. You know nothing about Seattle.

  6. I appreciate your analysis Jonathan. It seems like the main argument made by the Washington AG is that the moratorium discriminates against religion. The problem with that is of the many Muslim countries, only 7 are affected. There was a good reason for the 7 countries. Those 7 countries don’t have enough control over who travels outside of their countries, or in the case of Iran is a long-term enemy of the U.S. anyway. This isn’t picking on people because of religion. This is picking on 7 countries because they are much riskier than any other countries in the world and in most cases is where ISIS has a strong presence. I think your analysis that in the end this will survive is correct. Yes, it’s tough for the people in those 7 countries, but it’s not the fault of the U.S. or the President. It’s just the way it is and it’s only 90 – 120 days with room for case-by-case exceptions. It’s reasonable.

    It’s refreshing to note that you say nobody has a right to a visa. It’s not a property right. People with green cards have a right to come here…that’s different.

    • and even green cards can be revoked. They are not permanent.

      Well put wouid that Judge in Seattle been so objectively minded and as he’s proved in Seattle wrapped up in the clean air but forgetting the sewage in the Sound.

  7. The principle of judicial comity mandates that a judge follow the ruling of an equivalent judicial officer unless the latter has made a decision that is “clearly wrong” such as failing/refusing to follow controlling precedent.Otherwise,judicial anarchy ensues.Did Judge Roberts in Seattle consider the ruling by his brother judge in Boston?Did he mention it and find it to be “clearly wrong”?Does this important principle even apply in the context of US Federal Court procedure?

    • Just a cursory check shows 9th Circuit is adept at slipping around that one i went back as far as 2011 and they basically said their were enough differences so it wouln’t apply – or something.

      .

    • Simple fix. Circuit Court rulings may NOT be made nation wide or out of their jurisdictional area without a complete en banq session.

      And then

      Only after consulting and agreeing with the other circuit court ruling.

      This one judge dictatorship routine has gone quite far enough.

      Ajnd that fix does not take an amendment.

      Just a ruling from SCOTUS and a slap on the wrist.

      • Another not much discussed view on illegal immigrants called Temporary Protected Status…

        Source is Refugee Resettlement Watch https://refugeeresettlementwatch@wordpress.com

        New post on Refugee Resettlement Watch

        “Haitian ‘temporary’ refugees to test Trump’s resolve on immigration
        by Ann Corcoran

        I’ve written about ‘Temporary Protected Status’ over the years as a side issue here at RRW. But, like the Diversity Visa Lottery, it begs for more attention from some intrepid wannabe blogger who should take on the issue as a sole priority and really do it justice.

        TPS is basically a scam, it is rarely temporary!

        The US, in its humanitarian zeal (supposedly), allows certain nationals who got in to the US in some other way (usually illegally) to stay if their home country cannot take them back for some extenuating reason (big storm, earthquake, civil war). Under TPS, these nationals become temporary refugees allowed to stay and work in America.

        Then every 18 months, a TPS designation is extended for another 18 months and this can go on for years.

        Click here to learn more and see the countries eligible for this special deal right now. Note that Hondurans have had their special status extended ever since 1999. El Salvador since 2001.

        And, since we have such a huge refugee program from Somalia, I have never understood why Somalis have TPS.

        At one point, during the Bush presidency (when he was extending again some TPS designation), I came to understand that those countries, like El Salvador, loved this program because their people working legally in the US were propping up the Salvadoran economy with their remittances (money sent out of the US economy to the third world country).

        Here is the latest from the Miami Herald. You see what happens, after years and years in the US, these people have jobs, houses, kids in school and they use that argument—you can’t possibly be so mean to send us back now—against us!

        BTW, all of those on TPS had their hopes dashed when the ‘Gang of Eight’ legislation failed in Congress a few years ago. They were hoping for amnesty so they would never have to leave.

        Miami Herald:

        Immigration attorney Little calls the proposal to not extend TEMPORARY status to Haitians “heartless and stupid.”

        The Trump administration is recommending sending tens of thousands of Haitians back to their homeland because it believes conditions have significantly improved in the disaster-prone, poverty-stricken nation.

        [….]

        James McCament, the acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said Temporary Protected Status, the immigration relief that has allowed Haitians to live and work freely in the United States, should be terminated. The Obama administration granted the status following the earthquake, which left more than 300,000 dead, 1.5 million injured and an equal number homeless.

        “Conditions in Haiti no longer support its designation for TPS,” McCament said in a memo to U.S. Department of Homeland Secretary John F. Kelly obtained by the Miami Herald.

        McCament’s recommendations came as a surprise to many, including Haitian and immigration advocates who have been pushing for the extension of TPS before July 22, when it is up for renewal.

        Help OUR economy? Someone should do a study about how much of our money leaves our economy through remittances!

        “TPS beneficiaries contribute greatly to our economy,” said attorney Cheryl Little, whose Americans for Immigrant Justice organization also represents some of the estimated 300,000 Central Americans who have been enjoying the special status since 1999. “They are growing our economy and to suddenly say, ‘There is a new sheriff in town, pack your bags,’ it’s heartless and it’s stupid.”

        The Center for American Progress had been closely monitoring the decision on Haiti because it’s the “first test of this administration’s commitment to handle TPS determinations in an apolitical manner that respects human rights and the letter of the law,” said Tom Jawetz, the center’s vice president for immigration policy.

        It is a test for CAP and a test for those of us who supported Trump’s campaign promises!

        Continue here for lots more at the Miami Herald clearly advocating for Haitians to stay!

        One last thing! TPS allows those so designated to live and work here as if they were legal immigrants. And, it allows them to get drivers’ licenses. It does not allow them to vote, but with drivers’ licenses, who is going to stop them?
        Ann Corcoran | April 24, 2017 at 7:36 am | Tags: Haiti, Temporary Protected Status | Categories: Haiti, Immigration fraud, Trump Watch!, Who is going where | URL: http://wp.me/p5sGi-CHW

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s