Trump Order “Drips With Religious Intolerance”: Fourth Circuit Uphold Injunction on Second Immigration Order

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedUS-CourtOfAppeals-4thCircuit-SealIn a stinging defeat for the Trump Administration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has upheld an injunction on the Trump Administration’s immigration order.  The Fourth Circuit is widely viewed as one of the most conservative circuits and has proven the most deferential to national security powers by the Executive Branch. Indeed, the government often openly forum shops in pushing national security cases through the Eastern District of Virginia and ultimately the Fourth Circuit.  The 10-3 vote is an impressive victory for the challengers and now sets the case for the long-awaited petition to the Supreme Court.  The court did not spare the rhetorical bite, observing that the order “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

The oral arguments were held on May 8th and I thought the Justice Department did a much better job than the first round leading to the losses in California.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will also rule on the second order.

I still believe that the law favors the Trump Administration.  However, Trump himself has proven the greatest liability as challengers repeatedly quoted Trump’s anti-Muslim campaign comments and references to a Muslim ban.

However, the response of the Fourth Circuit clearly a bad omen for the Administration.  This is not a court that can be dismissed as some cabal of liberals.  Ten judges ruled en banc that “We remain unconvinced [the ban] has more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the President’s promised Muslim ban.” Chief Justice Roger L. Gregory added that “Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation.”

I am still skeptical about the weight given to campaign statements over the language of the order on its face.  I expect a number of justices are likely to have the same reservations.  Time will tell but that time is rapidly approaching.

Here is the opinion: Immigration decision

128 thoughts on “Trump Order “Drips With Religious Intolerance”: Fourth Circuit Uphold Injunction on Second Immigration Order

  1. I consider you one of the few legal scholars and commentators I know of who is sober and trustworthy, so perhaps you can respond to this thought (or one of the lawyers in your audience). The injunctions seem predicated on the idea that the plaintiffs would likely prevail at trial. Looking at this ruling as a jury verdict by justices, it seems obvious that a trial by jury could very easily end in a hung jury and no verdict? To a layman, the premise that plaintiffs have almost no chance of losing this case at trial seems tenuous. Your thoughts Mr. Turley?

  2. Hey all,
    There were 7 countries in the first Order, but one has dropped as of the Second Order – now there are 6.
    Can you name the country?
    Is it any less Islamic or Muslim than before?
    So why’d it get dropped if this is truly a “Muslim ban”?

  3. And where were these courts when Obama was trampling all over the rights of its citizens? I’m not impressed with any of their decisions.

    • David, did the court actually decide based on what was in the well-written Order, or did they have to go outside to political campaign slogans they don’t like from before he was president to find as they do?

      bedlam is the politicization of the courts.

      You would do well to escape too.

  4. we have to dissolve homeland security. according to these liberal democrats the country is not in danger of anymore radical islamist attacks. until it happens.

    • Since the libs won can we require that all the towel heads from these six countries live in the Blue States?

      I can’t believe we lost. Forget the merits. Did anyone see the job Omar did (ACLU attorney) ? Where did get his shingle…online?

  5. Why can’t ‘tards’ except a law professor’s analysis at face value? When you get a degree or spend hundreds of hours of court watching, valid arguments will be listened to.

      • Do you even know how offensive you are and sound?

        Rant and play your smarter than and gotcha spell checker games.

        The fact remains you lost. Got it? You lost HUGE. The same will happen in the midterms.

        We simply like what President Trump does, what he says, how he says it and how he acts.

        FLASH: No one, and I mean no one cares what you write and say. Get it?

        You remind of your monorail. Every time I fly into SEATAC (with my 9’s) I never leave Seattle without doing two (2) things. Well, actually three (3) if you count going to Ray’s Boathouse for Dungeness.

        A ride up the space needle. My biggest amazement is that the $4 millon dollar price tag to paint it is what it originally cost to build it.

        Second, I’m off for my ride or 2 or 3 on the monorail. Both attractions remind me of my World’s Fair visit as a kid.

        The monorail typifies you and your views. Same, same old thing. Goes from this point to that point. Never further and never ever changes.

        Oh, well. Here’s my ✋ stop. Off to the Fairmont. Yeah. Schuckers has a to die for Dungeness claw cocktail.

      • The one who blew up some kids at that concert in Manchester – who woulda guessed that he and his ilk have a [US] constitutional right to come on into the US and attend concerts with your preteen children. Thanks to the 4th and 9th for clearing that up! So how about you waking up Davey boy? Ok? – Our kids need everyone on deck.

        • My understanding is that he was a UK citizen and so probably wouldn’t even require a visa to enter the USA.

          The Donald’s illegitimate travel ban would not have applied to him. Correct me if I’m wrong.

          • My understanding is that he was a UK citizen and so probably wouldn’t even require a visa to enter the USA.

            David,
            You make a very case for the need to implement the temporary ban and then some. That is what your saying, right? I mean who in their right mind would argue the ban would not have stopped Salman, therefore we shouldn’t temporarily ban anyone? Thank you for pointing that out. If we have holes in the currently policy that wouldn’t have stopped Salman from entry into the United States, then certainly the administration needs more, not less restrictions on this travel ban.

      • Why, Salman is part of our many dirty deals. We are no different from the UK, other countries.

        https://www.yahoo.com/news/attack-turns-spotlight-libyan-islamists-manchester-181339376.html

        [B]ritain ‘paying the price’ –

        The LIFG was founded by Libyans who fought against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan and, back home, sought to overthrow Kadhafi and replace his regime with an Islamic one.

        LIFG has been banned in Britain since 2005, meaning it is considered a terrorist organisation and it is an offence to be a member, support it or encourage support.

        “In the case of the LIFG, quite a lot of them ended up coming to the UK, where they were taking advantage of the fact that the country has a fairly open approach to political dissidents,” said Pantucci.

        Monday’s deadly attack on a pop concert was perpetrated by Salman Abedi, a 22-year-old born and raised in a Libyan family in the south of the city.

        Abedi’s father Ramadan was a member of LIFG who found refuge in Britain before returning to fight against Kadhafi in 2011, police in Tripoli told AFP. He is now in Libyan custody following the Manchester attack.

        Pantucci said there was clearly a family environment where armed struggle was “fairly normalised”.

        Reda Fhelboom, a Libyan journalist who has spent many years living in Manchester, said Britain was paying an “entirely predictable” price for allowing Libyan Islamists into the country.[…]

        • Thanks for that – my post was meant to shock of course – David will probably reply that Salman was born and raised in Britain. Yup. But he went to Libya and came back radicalized. We currently can’t properly vet those from Libya who seek to come here, and now voila they were all just granted constitutional rights to come here as they see fit. They ought not be allowed to come (or come back) from those places in the first place. Not until we have sufficient vetting protocol in place that will weed the Salmans out. Trump is right that we must drive the Salmans out – but he is also right that we ought not let them in from those countries either. But the 4th has flung wide the doors.

          • and imo his parents never should have been brought in…they pretty quickly went back and forth regularly to Libya and his father is there, thankfully arrested, and the first hint there was nothing at all upstanding about these “refugees” was an early report that stated Mama was “traveling” …. then it comes out that the family but for two sons is in fact in Libya. LOL there is so much of this, under one guise or anotehr. Remember the strange and odious “Octomom” of some years ago… we brought in her father from Iraq, in earlier waves (the ’91 era war, iirc) , he had been one of Saddam’s generals. So blessed are we to have these awful people.

            Evocative of the odd Tsarnaevs Boston fame… as well. Who goes home to the ‘stans for cancer treatment. That is the story the parents tell…

            Remember the minor creep of the “Times Square bombing”, little piffle bomb/car bomb that could not go off… here on a work visa…. doing back office work in CT for iirc Eliz Arden. Yes we so need to bring in cubicle level workers, basic numbers running in back office Accounting Depts.

            Not to even get started on the Kizr Khans or the Abedins. The Mateen (Orlando) connection was bringing in his father, one of those emigres who envisions a return to Afghanistan as president. There’s a laugh. We are loaded with them.

  6. Another example of “Judicial Fascism”. The Judiciary is waging a coup against the other branches of government. The Obama and Clinton appointments are coming back to haunt us. Let’s hope Justice Gorsuch, et. al. can put a stop to it and save our Republic!

    • I understand how you feel. But Gorsuch may well turn out to be a Trojan Horse like John Roberts turned out to be. Let’s hope not and hope and pray that he follows the US Constitution, unlike those lowlifes and vile weasels inhabiting the Ninth and Fourth Circuits.

      • I see.

        9th considered the most liberal.

        4th considered the most conservative.

        Possibly, as both agree, that is the correct interpretation of the Constitution.

        Do ya think?

        • Wrong. Obama hijacked the 4th Circuit long ago and it has since become nearly as leftist as the 9th. And with some Clinton drones in there, it was a lock that the 4th Circuit would rule in favor of the terrorists. Check it out and learn a couple of things.

            • No one knows more than FOX News.

              Their reputation for accuracy and thoroughness is almost as stellar as their reputation for sound advice on dating in the workplace.

            • It is EXACTLY what he wrote. Turley wrote that “[t]his [i.e., the Fourth Circuit] is not a court that can be dismissed as some cabal of liberals.” But that is PRECISELY what is untrue. The Fourth Circuit can easily INDEED be dismissed as a “cabal of liberals”–or Leftists, my preferred term. And it is not a matter of who knows more about the Fourth Circuit. My point is that Turley DOES, in fact, know what the Fourth Circuit is really about, but he LIES in this article to pretend that the Fourth Circuit is “conservative” when he knows that the very OPPOSITE is true.

              Here are the facts about the Fourth Circuit, that is, if you are interested in FACTS, which you do not seem to be interested in at all. But on the outside chance that you have at least a curiosity about the facts pertaining to the Fourth Circuit, then here they are:

              http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-liberal-shift-in-the-fourth-circuit-27839/

              • 4th Circuit: All of the Democratic appointees (Gregory was originally a Clinton recess appointment who was renominated by W as part of a deal to confirm conservative nominees) voted to uphold the injunction. All of the Republican appointees voted to remove it. Probably a coincidence.

        • If this is a correct interpretation of the Constitution, then we have a seriously flawed Constitution . The prohibition against discriminating against any and all religions was written by men who never read the Koran and assumed that all religions were equally deserving of respect. Any “religion” which requires mistreatment of women, which declares them to be inferior, which proposes war against all who do not conform to its tenets, which is hate-filled and unmerciful, which believes in dismemberment as legal punishment for perceived crimes, promotes slavery and dhimmitude has nothing but contempt for the body of laws which allows them equal treatment.
          Bottom line: Islam is a barbaric, social-religious-legal system which is diametrically opposed to every value we hold dear. If the law demands equal treatment for this murderous faith, then the law is an ass.

        • Sorry, if “thinking” was your actual intent, you’d have given some rudimentary thought about the factual accuracy of your snarling.

          First, the 4th is no longer conservative. Obama’s court appointments (“packing’?) have radically swung the court to the left.

          Second, the 4th circuit (as did the ninth) voted along party lines; the ten Democratic appointments voted against Trump’s travel ban and the remaining 3 Republican appointments (two others recused themselves) in support of the Trump travel ban.

          In other words “as both sides disagree” along party lines, then it as likely an incorrect interpretation as it is the correct one.

          Or as you needlessly taunted “Do ya think?”

  7. Democrats should just move to the Middle East where they can try to spread their Atheism. Muslims just LOVE Atheists most of all

    • I think STUOID is the word we’re looking for here…

      Try again… put some effort into it…

      You’ll like yourself more when you sober up…

        • I initially thought the same thing so I decided to look it up. This is from the Urban Dictionary:

          stuoid
          1. To linger on a thought or moment for a long period of time, usually because of a dramatic or emotional experience.

          2. Continuous thoughts that can become an annoyance to an individual.

        • I don’t know what the comments are about “sober up. If referring to President Trump, he doesn’t touch alcohol.

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