On Monday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit restored the latest travel ban imposed by President Donald Trump. I previously criticized (here and here) the challenges to the travel ban and I believe that the Ninth Circuit is on solid ground in ruling the government can bar entry of people from six Muslim-majority countries with no connections to the United States. In my view, the injunction issued in Hawaii ignored the significance of not only critical differences in the third travel order but also the prior decision of the Supreme Court to vacate the prior injunction.
The connection to the United States are defined as family relationships which include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States. The term can also include and “formal, documented” relationships with U.S.-based entities such as universities and resettlement agencies. The order tracks the interim decision the Supreme Court issued in June on the second version of the travel ban. The Supreme Court earlier reversed the Ninth Circuit on its prior injunction of the second travel order. It did however continue to enjoin the order as to people with such relationships with the United States. Notably, at the time, three justices wanted a total vacating of the injunction without any exception.
The decision reverses parts of the lower court decision by U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu. The three appeals court judges included Clinton appointees Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez. The Ninth Circuit did not issue a permanent ruling. The oral argument on the merits will be heard in Seattle on Dec. 6 before the same three judges.
It’s encouraging that your American Leftists have taken a break from raping each other to find time to criticize your president’s efforts to keep you safe with this travel ban. And your press on this point ?
The temerity ! The gall ! The unmitigated, outrageous and deafening snore of your press…which covers your important news…with a pillow. Until it stops moving.
What do we need to do to IMPEACH a federal judge, say in Hawaii?
Wow! The Ninth Circuit Court! Truly pigs are flying; the End of Days cannot be far away.
Dave in Arizona – I did read they are having a lot of tremors on the San Andreas fault. Not too late for CA to slide into the ocean. 🙂
Unfortunately the San Andreas Fault separates the Pacific Plates from the North American plates just south of Watsonville in Monterey Bay. . Only half the state would float away. California collectivist can’t even float away correctly.
Hello legal scholars out there: Korematsu.
Remember that case? Law of the land.
We can lock up American born citizens if they have the wrong ancestory.
So when the Twin Towers go down then open up the concentration camps and round up the muslims.
Of course we can bar migrants from coming in. Jeso.
Watson needs to be impeached
9th should have just flatly rejected his ruling and pointed to SCOTUS and then stayed out of it
Why didn’t they list cousin to their ex-wifes garbage man? Really?
A.D., if we have no borders, we have no country.
Walter Funk, you bring up a fairly touchy subject for left wing apologist.
IMHO: Not much of a “ban” given the broad definition of “connection.” But it’s a start.
Turley, the headline has a typo. Again.
No. Immigration + Injunction = Imjunction.
El Cid – you have better editing skills than I do with less than one cup of coffee. 🙂 I went right past that.
Headlines are a remarkably easy place to have a typo… Been there…. Bad enough on a blog, but worse when you have to present a $10,000 print job with a typo in the headline.
Doh!!!!
Turley
Whether or not one agrees with the substance of the Ninth Circuit’s Order, your headline is quite misleading. The Court granted an emergency stay of a significant portion of the District Court’s preliminary injunction. Part of the preliminary injunction remains in effect. And this order in not a reversal (or affirmance) of the preliminary injunction on the merits.
Your headline writers must be the same people who write in The Washington post that the US Supreme Court “affirmed” a lower court when the Supremes denied certiorari.
I expect higher standards ona Legal blog.
This order “Is not” ……
With all the outrage over Moore dating girls 12 years his junior, the left and RINO’s are suddenly apoplectic over a religion founded by someone who took an 8 year old as a child bride.
I think he just groomed her until she was 12. Then he consummated the wedding.
At 9 it seems. http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
A rather vague 9 is what that says.
Boy, does that ever sound like a winning defense in criminal court.
“She was a rather vague nine, your honor.”
good point.
I still cannot believe that we live in a time in which our Right to dictate and restrict incoming immigration and travel could ever, even for a second, be questioned! Unbelievable.
Those questioning you so called right are also American citizens. Maybe the right can be kind enough to accept to share the country with the rest of the American population.
For a change, they drew the right group of judges. Good job ninth Circus.
I believe all three Judges were appointed by Democrats. Paez is regarded as fairly liberal.
Somebody here has a brain.
Don de Drain – you don’t suppose they saw the handwriting on the Supreme Court’s wall and decided to get ahead of it? Maybe the Ninth Circuit is getting tired of being overturned?
I believe all three Judges were appointed by Democrats. Paez is regarded as fairly liberal.
Proving it’s not impossible to put the constitution before party or ideology. A lesson Judge Watson would be wise to learn.
They stayed in part judge Watson’s decision pending the scheduled hearing in December. They didn’t rule on the legality of his decision.
So what are you saying, they were ideologically motivated and acted unconstitutionally? Then why bother?
It’s the same group that struck down travel ban 2.