Supreme Court Rules For Trump On Another Immigration Issue

The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump another win on an immigration issue on Tuesday. The Court ruled 5-4 that the Ninth Circuit was wrong in limiting Trump’s mandatory detention policy for immigrants with criminal records. Splitting along with ideological fault line, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the other four conservative justices to reverse the Ninth Circuit. Four other circuits had ruled with the Trump Administration. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion.

Mony Preap, the lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, is a lawful permanent resident who had two drug convictions that qualified him for mandatory detention.

Under a provision enacted in 1996 (110 Stat. 3009–585, 8 U. S. C. §1226(c)), aliens who have serious criminal records or terrorism links must be arrested “when [they are] released” from custody on criminal charges and (with one narrow exception) must be detained without a bond hearing
until the question of their removal is resolved. The Ninth Circuit ruled effectively add a limitation on to that language in ruling that detention is only allowed if a covered alien is arrested by immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail. Thus, if the alien evades arrest for as little as 24 hours, the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable. He is also able to file for release on bond or parole.

Alito wrote that the Ninth Circuit not only ignored the plain meaning of the law but set up a test guaranteed to fail in many cases:

“Especially hard to swallow is respondents’ insistence that for an alien to be subject to mandatory detention under §1226(c), the alien must be arrested on the day he walks out of jail (though respondents allow that it need not be at the jailhouse door—the “parking lot” or “bus stop” would do). Tr. of Oral Arg. 44. “Assessing the situation in realistic and practical terms, it is inevitable that” respondents’ unsparing deadline will often be missed for reasons beyond the Federal Government’s control. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U. S., at 720. Cf. Regions Hospital v. Shalala, 522 U. S. 448, 459, n. 3 (1998) (“The Secretary’s failure to meet the deadline, a not uncommon occurrence when heavy loads are thrust on administrators, does not mean that [she] lacked power to act beyond it”). “

Writing for the dissenting justices, Justice Stephen Breyer accused the majority of ignoring the core constitutional values underlying our system as a whole:

“I would have thought that Congress meant to adhere to these values and did not intend to allow the Government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing. In my view, the Court should interpret the words of this statute to reflect Congress’ likely intent, an intent that is consistent with our basic values. To speak more technically, I believe that aliens are subject to paragraph (2)’s bar on release only if they are detained “when . . . released” from criminal custody. To speak less technically, I fear that the Court’s contrary interpretation will work serious harm to the principles for which American law has long stood.”

Here is the opinion: Nielsen v. Preap

75 thoughts on “Supreme Court Rules For Trump On Another Immigration Issue”

  1. It’s a crazy country that debates the efficacy and propriety of detaining criminals likely to flee and commit more harm. What manner of sophistry deludes people to think society has no right to protect itself? The test of actionable madness is the propensity to harm oneself or others, and oneself comes first. Armed with that knowledge how can we possibly have four of the nation’s most powerful leaders find that society must tolerate suspected criminals in our midst unless they are detained the very day they are released from another sovereign’s detention? Virginia’s sage, Thomas Jefferson, once lamented that “indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just….”
    With due respect, I tremble for my country when I reflect that men can be fools regardless of rank attained.

  2. Why does the left continue to ignore common sense to the point of inanity. All Americans know that illegal aliens who commit crimes should NEVER be released back into society. It is incumbent on all parts of the government to detain them and deport them!! Yet the Left continues to encourage breakdown in civil society and aren’t even smart enough to imagine the unintended consequences of their breathtakingly stupid ideas. It is incumbent on federal, state and local authorities to act in unison. But just like the Left Coast wants to leave the Union, these leftist SCOTUS wants to break apart the rest of the USA. I say they all go to Cali and we wait for the big earthquake jettison them off to their own island.

  3. The SCOTUS has been the singular American failure since the wholly unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln who conducted his war and tyrannical oppression campaign by “executive order.”

    Only one justice is necessary, deciding under threat of impeachment for decisions that do not “…void…” “…acts contrary…” to the “…manifest tenor…” of the Constitution. All Americans can read and comprehend the plain and simple English words of that document. A great example, “…general Welfare…” deliberately omits and, thereby, excludes “…individual Welfare…” denying Congress any power to tax for any form of individual welfare.

    What needs to be enhanced and accelerated is the impeachment process. Justices currently have no fear, acting as “untouchables.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    1. George said, “All Americans can read and comprehend the plain and simple English words of that document. A great example, “…general Welfare…” deliberately omits and, thereby, excludes “…individual Welfare…” denying Congress any power to tax for any form of individual welfare.”

      Thusly does George conclude that The Constitution precludes the federal government of the United States from doing anything for the benefit of individual White people (male or female). Instead, it is only for the “general welfare” of White people (male or female) that the federal government of the United States can do anything at all.

      For instance, further downstream from here, George insinuates that the federal government of the United States could–for the general welfare of White people–require fertile White women of child-bearing age to be sexually enslaved to White men for the maintenance of a White majority population. However, George studiously neglected to mention the necessary imposition of anti-miscegenation laws on the reproductive freedom of White males–also for the general welfare of White people–and for the same purpose of maintaining White majority political power. (I won’t get into the Thirteenth Amendment at this time; see below)

      Nevertheless, the question arises whether that which might be good for the general welfare of White people (i.e. anti-miscegenation laws and the sexual enslavement of White women to White men) might also infringe upon the civil liberty and reproductive freedom of individual White men or individual White women, even if such infringements of freedom and liberty were for their own individual welfare as White folk in general.

      P. S. I can only raise that last question. I have no idea what it might mean to be a White individual in general. I do remember that “weal” used to mean “well” or “well-being” and not merely “wealth.”

      1. JT’s town drunk, L4D is back in the bar room cruising for a bruising. The bar room bouncer is watching you.

        1. George has been wearing big boy pants since 1950 at least. Show some respect for your elders.

          1. L4D makes threats against JT & blog commentators:

            “Turley and his blawg hounds must be punished–daily, relentlessly, mercilessly punished.”

            L4D, JT’s town drunk doesn’t like the reminder…..L4D is a sanctimonious duplicitous pusillanimous Pip-Squeak!

            1. So, do you have anything constructive to say, or just want to whine because authoritarianism is not being done as you wish?

            2. The term “punished” is too vague. Change it to the term “spanked,” instead.

              P. S. It’s rumored that Ptom Gnash has a registered trade mark on the word “duplicitous.” Stick with sanctimonious, pusillanimous pip-squeak. But add the word “runt” after the “pip-squeak” bit.

              P. S. S. Say hello to Spinelli for me the next time you guys get together to drown a bucketful of puppies.

              1. I do not have trademarks on the words mentioned by L4B.
                I do occasionally use those words to describe the activities of our resident liars and propagandists; they work so had at proving they are ultra-partisan hacks and clowns that some recognition is due them.

      2. Fun fact: I don’t speak, I quote the Constitution and the Founders.

        Article 1, Section 8 provides Congress the power to tax merely for “…general Welfare…” deliberately omitting and, thereby, excluding any power of Congress to tax for “…individual Welfare…”

        The Constitution provided maximal freedom to individuals while severely limiting the infinitesimal government the Founders created – which they created, incidentally, to exist solely to facilitate the freedom of individuals. You disagree with the Constitution. So did Karl Marx.

        The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional. Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

        The 13th and all “Reconstruction Amendments,” (which “injure” * the Constitution) like the entire American welfare state, are null and void having been corruptly and improperly ratified, and illicitly forced on America by “Crazy Abe” Lincoln and his successors under the duress of post-war military occupation; the unconstitutional Civil War having been prosecuted without official declaration and by unconstitutional executive orders.

        “Tyranny and oppression, don’t leave home without it.”

        – “Crazy Abe” Lincoln

        ” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”

        – James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789

        “Oh, it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”

        – Mother Nature, 1971

        It’s not nice to “injure” the Constitution.

        No one has ever suggested “injuring” or amending the Ten Commandments.

  4. If the democrats lower the voting age much more they’ll be aborting they’re constituents.

    1. That, and importing more foreigners that have no allegiance to the US. The only allegiance is to what they can get for free.

  5. “In my view, the Court should interpret the words of this statute to reflect Congress’ likely intent, an intent that is consistent with our basic values.”
    ~ Swami Justice Stephen Breyer (in dissent)

  6. Showed this to my friends here in Mexico. Some from almost every side of the issue including with records.First thing. With Trujmp we know where we stand. With los socialistas es diferente cada dia. Second comment. Que otra de communistas.

    Think of Bert Lahr.. “Ain’t it das Truuufff.

    Can’t get out of that one lefties. You earned it.

  7. Round em up! Head em out! Rawhide!
    Roll em roll em. roll them.
    Keep those doggies rolling… Rawhide!
    In any kind of weather…. etc

  8. “WHEN they are released” does not mean the same thing as “ANY TIME AFTER they are released”. Well, these used to be 2 different concepts before the radical conservatives took over.


    More interesting are the job seekers mentioned at 2:15

    1. Is this about that sneaky Comey announcement two weeks before the election? Most people think that just because he kept the investigation into Trump’s campaign secret while announcing the reopening of Hillary’s that would help him and hurt her. But no, you are too clever to fall for that trick.

      Wait ……. How did that work again?

      1. Is this about that sneaky Comey announcement two weeks before the election?

        Nothing sneaky about it. He was answering a congressional inquiry. It bothered the DNC press agents. Guess we know who your employer is.

        1. He was under no legal obligation to notify either Congress or the public 2 weeks before the election, so it’s curious how he would undermine his supposed master right before the election. Besides, according to your team, he’s a lying desperado who doesn’t give a lick about laws and protocol.

          1. If you fancy the FBI under Comey, McCabe, and Sztrok was biased in favor of Trump, there’s a job waiting for you at the DNC press office. Inveterate liars are people they can use.

            1. Maybe you can explain how these master conspirators managed to sabotage Hillary’s campaign 2 weeks before the election while protecting Trump’s. No one else can.

              Maybe you could also point out what I said that you consider a lie. You have heard of sarcasm, right?

      2. “Is this about that sneaky Comey announcement two weeks before the election?”

        You don’t seem to have a clue, nor do you understand context or timing or how regular citizens were prosecuted for secrutiy violations that were far less than those of Hillary. Not only that but Hillary willfully destroyed her hard drives instead of giving them to Congress as required by law. You do realize that the FBI lawyer at about that time wanted to charge Hillary Clinton and prosecute her criminally, don’t you?

        1. No, that’s wrong.

          “….Section 793(f) is a subsection of the Espionage Act, a controversial statute enacted during World War I in order to combat efforts by German agents to undermine the American war effort. The Act has been amended and renumbered many times, but its core provisions have not substantively changed. The Espionage Act has only sparingly been used to file criminal charges, but when it has been used it is often in high-profile cases. Eugene Debs was jailed under the Espionage Act for anti-war activities during World War I. The Rosenbergs were charged under the Espionage Act when they sold nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. More recently, both Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were charged under the Espionage Act for providing classified material to WikiLeaks…..

          In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States. In that case, the defendant was charged with selling information “relating to the national defense” to a foreign power. The defendant argued on appeal that the phrase “relating to the national defense” was unconstitutionally vague, so much so that the defendant was deprived of the ability to predetermine whether his actions were a crime.

          Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:

          The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.

          In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).

          Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory….”

          John Ford is a former military prosecutor and a current reserve U.S. Army Judge Advocate. He now practices law in California.

          1. As I said Anon, you don’t have a clue. You have the ability to copy but do not understand context or timing something your copying clearly demonstrates. Think about the American sailor who went to jail for sending a picture to his girlfriend. That picture did no harm and harm is not the issue.

            1. The sailor knew he was taking pictures he shouldn’t take and tried to hide the information, thus demonstrating intent

              1. Anon, are you trying to say that Hillary had no intent when she had her hard drive bleached and then hammered it to death? You don’t even pass the laugh test.

                1. The intent would be to knowingly collect and disseminate classified material. Hillary viewed classified emails on a secure server at the State Dept.

                  1. Anon, Hillary had information on her insecure server some of which as Secretary of State should never be there. It was disseminated to Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner and likely to the Chinese and Russians. When asked for the hard drive by Congress “she had her hard drive bleached and then hammered it to death”. Do you really think that was done by accident? Don’t you think it was with intent to prevent Congress from looking at it and potentially seeing a lot of material that should never have ended up on an insecure server?

                    There is not one ounce of intellectual honesty in your discussions. TDS has encumbered your brain.

                    1. Two emails found on Hillary’s drive had the notation “(c)”, indicting classified, but not universally recognized within the Department. Several other emails were later classified, but were not when sent or received.

                      Hillary’s intent was to use her home computer for personal and non-classified communications and – like Powell and Rice before her – did not wish those available under FOI rules.

                      Gee, I wonder why.

                    2. “Two emails found on Hillary’s drive had the notation “(c)”, indicting classified, ”

                      As Secretary of State all US business email going to her in that capacity can reasonably considered classified until read by the Secretary or her agent. You have alread pointed to two violations but we have to consider the fact that she had her hard drive intentionally bleached and hammered in order to destroy evidence that should have been evaluated by Congress. You keep evading that simple act that is illegal. You have no answer so you have closed your eyes along with your brain.

                      I wait for your response to the question that has been asked numerous times.

                  2. Anon……..I have a family member who worked on 7th with Hil.
                    Your assessment of her and what went on at State is naive, I’m sorry to say.

                    1. I have related the facts of Hillary’s email “scandal”.

                      I do know she worked her ass off as Sec of State. As to the loyalty and admiration of those who work for and with her, I’m sure there could be variations, but at her time in the US Senate she was well liked as a team player by both Republicans and Democrats and in her early years she worked to help others through the Children’s Defense Fund and setting up legal clinics for the indigent. The following is from Vox:

                      “So as I interviewed Clinton’s staffers, colleagues, friends, and foes, I began every discussion with some form of the same question: What is true about the Hillary Clinton you’ve worked with that doesn’t come through on the campaign trail?…

                      The answers startled me in their consistency. Every single person brought up, in some way or another, the exact same quality they feel leads Clinton to excel in governance and struggle in campaigns. On the one hand, that makes my job as a reporter easy. There actually is an answer to the question. On the other hand, it makes my job as a writer harder: It isn’t a very satisfying answer to the question, at least not when you first hear it.

                      Hillary Clinton, they said over and over again, listens….”

                    2. “I do know she worked her ass off as Sec of State.”

                      Anon, how do you know she worked hard? What counts is her accomplishments. I think her hardest job was destroying her hard drive by having someone bleach it and hammer it to death. That was with intent and the intent was to deny Congress access to her hard drive. It is amazing how little you know and that you understand even less.

                    3. Anon……….the problem was two-fold……..she stopped listening, but still relied heavily on staff, after she left Foggy Bottom. And more damaging, staff stopped listening to the public and were oblivious to how political correctness was detrimentally affecting the relevance of the Democrats..
                      To me, the most obvious bleeding thing in the world in 2016 was that Trump was going to win. It was hard to believe, but easy to see. And she was surrounded by the smartest of the smarts…..PhD’s etc., a-plenty.
                      But they were clinging like ivy to the old tried and true ways of doing things, politically. And no one could tell them they were wrong because look at the alternative: an inexperienced idiot, a joke, they thought.

                    4. Allan, I know these thinfs you don’t because read newspapers and don’t watch Fox.

                      “According to the State Department, the most-traveled Secretary of State in history visited 112 countries during her four-year tenure, traversing 956,733 miles — enough to span the globe more than 38 times — and spending 401 total days on the road. Her dizzying world tour shattered the previous record of countries visited by Secretaries of State, held by Madeline Albright, who saw 98 different nations from 1997 to 2001. It was enough to earn Clinton the moniker “Secretary of Schlep” by Foreign Policy, while The Atlantic dubbed her the “George Clooney of global affairs.”

                      So where exactly did Clinton go? She broke Albright’s record when she traveled to Finland, hit the 100-country mark in Latvia, and famously danced up a storm in South Africa.

                      Since the full scale of Mme. Secretary’s travels can’t be conveyed through words, check out the map below to see exactly how much jet-lag Clinton can expect to catch up with her….

                    5. “Allan, I know these thinfs you don’t because read newspapers and don’t watch Fox.”

                      Anon, we know you can copy things, but that seems to be your limit of activity.

                      “According to the State Department, the most-traveled Secretary of State in history visited 112 countries during her four-year tenure, traversing 956,733 miles”

                      Congratulations Anon, but what did Hillary do?

                      You can pound one million nails into a house you are building but that doesn’t make it a good house. Are your intellectual abilities so lacking that you judge work output by the number of miles or the number of nails?

                    6. Cindy if you could see that Trump would lose to Hillary by 3 million votes, yet win the electoral college by a combined 70,000 votes across 3 states, you should go to Vegas and cash in.

                    7. Allan says working hard – I proved my statement that as sec of State Hillary “worked her ass off” above – does not equal accomplishments and, while not my original claim which he is now moving the posts on, a valid point.

                      Hillary’s work was effective. Among her achievements were pushing worldwide, including in China, for women’s and girl’s human rights, Iranian sanctions which led to their abandonment of producing a nuclear weapon, SALT treaty with Russia, normalization of relations with Cuba, killing Bin Laden, beginnings of sanction on Russia as the “reset” faltered, cease fire in GAZA, and rebuilding the prestige of the US internationally after the disastrous Bush Cheney years. Polling showed worldwide respect for the US increased everywhere except the ME during her term.

                    8. ” Among her achievements were pushing worldwide, including in China, for women’s and girl’s human rights, ”

                      Tell us how woman’s and girl’s human rights were improved by Hillary Clinton because of her actions.

                      “Iranian sanctions which led to their abandonment of producing a nuclear weapon,”

                      Tell us how Iran having nuclear weapons in a few years according to the agreement makes the world safer. Tell us what she actually did. Was she the one that illegally delivered the cash by plane to the Ayatollah?

                      You are mentioning things supposedly accomplished under the Obama administration not necessarily having much to do with Clinton. She is known for her plastic RESTART button and our entry into the Libyan war with the killing of Ghaddafi which will forever make foreign policy more difficult when dealing with despots. She is also known for Benghazi where an innocent maker of video’s was blamed for the American deaths. We can’t forget her email server that opened her emails up to the Russians and Chinese though she did prevent the American Congress from seeing by deliberately bleaching and hammering her hard drives.

                      We all note your list without substance behind it. That list fails to prove anything of value that Hillary did. It would have been better for you to point out less things but actually attach them to Hillary demonstrating what she actually did.

                  3. Anon………There are not many people in America who have a family member who worked on 7th floor. Those working there could not even take cell phones up there.
                    I thought I was being nice by telling you what I observed first hand . and I was hoping maybe it would give you a bit more insight……It seems your hatred of the President does not allow you to have even a civil discussion about what happened in 2016…… from another perspective
                    You apparently don’t know or don’t care about the significance and history of the electoral college.
                    And for a touch of irony, in my opinion you have become, at least on this blog, what you say you hate about Trump.
                    You seem to be a nice guy…..just deeply set in your ways, like Archie Bunker.

                    1. Cindy, I believe I’ve remained civil except for some sarcasm, brutal truths about our President which I can’t pretend don’t exist, and of course to Allan who’s arguments always devolve into fairly vicious and imagined personal attacks. In any case, what you relayed about Hillary was political strategy that in the end, and even with the Comey Hillary bombshell and protection of Trump, led her to a 3 million vote victory. By percentages, that was a greater victory than 11 previous US Presidents enjoyed, and lost because of a combined 70,000 votes across 3 states. In 2016, if the US didn’t have bad luck, it would’ve had no luck at all, to quote the blues song.

                      I’ll continue to try being civil if you wish to further engage, but my opinion of our President is signed, sealed, and delivered. If you notice him beginning to change in some ways, please bring it to my attention, but he’s more set in his substandard behavior – for a typical human – than ever and changing for the worse. How you all can continue to support him is beyond me.

                    2. “Cindy, I believe I’ve remained civil except for some sarcasm, brutal truths about our President which I can’t pretend don’t exist, and of course to Allan who’s arguments always devolve into fairly vicious and imagined personal attacks.”

                      Anon, under Jan F. I was quite nice and you were the one to make things nasty. You denied that and I posted our actual comments on the blog to make it clear that your assessment was wrong and that you were nasty from the start. Everyone on the blog at the time remembers Jan F.’s “Goodbye” and many recognize Jan F.’s reappearance as Anon.

                      An appology was due, but none came and you walked away without responding to the reposting of our initial contact.

                      Cindy might believe you are nice, but she is an exceptionally nice and forgiving person. I don’t consider one nice when their attacks almost always are libelous or slanderous. Criticism is fine but when one walks over the line of libel one need no longer consider that person as a respectable human being. Criticize the President all you want for what he did or how he acts. His strongest supporters here don’t agree with everything he says or does but recognize him as today’s leader and President who has done a lot of good. You don’t have to agree, but generally one can provide reasons. We can understand if you are unable to provide such reasons, but that is no reason for libel and slander.

                      As far as the electoral college goes you need to take out a history book and learn the reasons behind the electoral college and behind our federalist system. I am sure you can hammer a nail better than the rest of us because you trained yourself to do that. Now it is time to train yourself in the history of federalism, the Constitution and the electoral college.

        2. The FBI had the information about the Abedin-Weiner laptop in late September 2016.
          I have yet to see an explanation for the timing of reopening the Hillary email investigation ( waiting until late October).
          Had the FBI reopened the investigation in late September, it would have been “ancient history” in the news cycle as far as having any impact on the election.
          About 10 days before the election, the New York Times ran a story on the FBI investigation of a potential Trump-Russia link.
          I’ll try to find that link and post it again. There was also an effort on Christopher Steele’s part to get the media to report elements of the Steele Russian Dossier.
          The pre-election push by Steele to get the unverified Russian opposition research in the news was rejected by every reputable news organization contacted by Steele.



    Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration at least 63 times over the past two years, an extraordinary record of legal defeat that has stymied large parts of the president’s agenda on the environment, immigration and other matters.

    In case after case, judges have rebuked Trump officials for failing to follow the most basic rules of governance, including providing legitimate explanations for shifts in policy, supported by facts and, where required, public input.

    Many of the cases are in early stages and subject to reversal. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted a version of President Trump’s ban on travelers from certain predominantly Muslim nations to take effect after lower-court judges blocked the travel ban as discriminatory.

    But whether or not the administration ultimately prevails, the rulings so far paint a remarkable portrait of a government rushing to implement sweeping changes in policy without regard for longstanding rules against arbitrary and capricious behavior.

    “What they have consistently been doing is short-circuiting the process,” said Georgetown Law School’s William Buzbee, an expert on administrative law who has studied Trump’s record. In the regulatory cases, Buzbee said, “They don’t even come close” to explaining their actions, “making it very easy for the courts to reject them because they’re not doing their homework.”

    Two-thirds of the cases accuse the Trump administration of violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a 73-year-old law that forms the primary bulwark against arbitrary rule. The normal “win rate” for the government in such cases is about 70 percent, according to analysts and studies. But as of mid-January, a database maintained by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law shows Trump’s win rate at about 6 percent.

    Edited from: “The Real Reason The Trump Administration Is Constantly Losing In Court”


    It’s fascinating to note that one of Professor Turley’s colleague’s at Georgetown Law School, William Buzbee, is mentioned in this story. Did Turley know this story would be running today? If so, perhaps the professor ran this column to counter-program a story that emphasized court losses.

  11. I have read the opinion. In a nutshell, the “strict constructionist” majority has held that a statute mandating that immigrants convicted of certain classes of crimes be arrested “when released” and held without bond pending removal proceedings actually means “whenever the proper authorities get around to it” (in this case, 5, 7 and 11 years later). In a nutshell, the Court has managed to replace the Ninth Circuit’s questionable construction with one that is both absurd and of dubious constitutionality.

    1. It’s of ‘dubious constitutionality’ to arrest and detain someone here illegally?

  12. Oh, Wow! Woo Hoo! Neil and Bart came through with flying colors. What a surprise! What a shock!

  13. Hooray………a great day for justice! The 9th circuit is an embarrassment, an opinion shared by many progressive jurists.

  14. Stephen Breyer accused the majority of ignoring the core constitutional values underlying our system as a whole:

    Stephen Breyer’s idea of ‘core constitutional values’ has as a consequence the notion that a vague provision in a law passed in 1868 requires county clerks to issue ‘marriage’ licenses to pairs of dudes. It also insists that a petty drug deal with 1 buyer and 1 seller off the books is ‘inter-state commerce’. His core values are properly ignored. It would be just if ‘Justice’ Breyer were stripped of his citizenship and booted out of the country.

  15. Any alien here unlawfully should be in detention at all times once apprehended. When he’s at the head of a queue, haul him in front of a federal jp, give him a Wapner hearing, jail him for an additional 10 weeks for illegal entry, and then deport him. Take down his biometrics and put them in a Consular service database, so he isn’t given a tourist visa for another 30 years.

      1. When I worked for the court system in New York, we processed 250,000 defendants a year. That would be sufficient to reduce net visa over-stayers to nil. There were at that time about 68,000 sworn officers in the state and local police and 17,000 in the employ of the sate prison system.

          1. You can start issuing orders when you’ve mastered the distinction between stock-and-flow.

            That aside, there are about 17 million people in this country at any one time who are inclined to commit street crimes. We still manage to enforce the law and to improve social conditions via law-enforcement.

  16. Any 5-4 conservative decisions are illegitimate since Gorduch occupies a stolen seat. Even given the other 4 conservatives justices appointed by Presidents rejected by voters, there should be a 5-4 liberal court majority.


      The Progressive mind acts like a knee jerk where the reaction to the stimulus never reaches the brain.

  17. Let’s be clear. It’s not immigration, it’s invasion.

    It’s “The Collapse of Western Civilization.”

    Women have a big job and they’ve abandoned it. Women literally make the physical nation – the people. Women got the vote; women got abortion. America got a death sentence. The population is imported. In 100 years, there won’t be an American left in America. The birthrate is in a “death spiral” as it is in Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It’s one of life’s little ironies – women are the true misogynists who hate pregnancy, childbirth and nurturing. America and Americans are vanishing into extinction because of the rejection by women of their natural duty; a duty assigned not by those pesky men but by nature or God. Apparently, America and Americans were created to disappear if women are to be believed. The hatred of the Feminazi misandrists is literally killing Americans and America. They love it.

    Attribution: Oky1

    1. Paul Joseph Watson will come to rue the day he decided to challenge those of us who are engaged in the glorious task of hastening the elimination of the white race and the inevitable imposition of Jesuit rule from our base in the Vatican.

    2. George cited P. J. Watson as saying, “. . . [B]ecause of the rejection . . . of their natural duty [i.e. childbirth] . . . [White] women are . . . literally killing [White] Americans and [White] America.”

      Thusly does the argument against reproductive freedom show its true color–White. [Literally a sort of pinkish beige. (But never mind that)] Evidently, White women of child-bearing age must become sexually enslaved to White men, not in keeping with the principle of self-defense (White women cannot be justifiably killed so long as they are fertile), but rather the principle of race-propagation.

      But even the propagation of the White race overstates the true principle at work in the argument against reproductive freedom at issue, here. It is, instead, the continuation of White political power and control through maintenance of a White majority population that is driving George and P. J.’s hysteria and incoherence. That is necessarily so because George and P.J must also impose anti-miscegenation laws on the reproductive freedom of White males, as well. Or did I get that last bit wrong, George?

      IIRC, the last time in the history of our great nation that White men had that kind of political power and control, White men engaged in a great deal of interracial procreation. Maybe it will be different next time, if George and P. J. get their way. After all, the U. S. Constitution currently states [paraphrased] that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude shall prevail in any of the states without due process of law.”

      D’oh! That puts the kibosh on the sexual enslavement of White women to White men. Doesn’t it? Confounded Constitution! Damned if you do; damned if you don’t. What’s it mean? What’s it mean?

  18. One less issue with which the liberals can clog the Federal court system.

  19. One less item with which the liberals can clog the Federal court system.

Comments are closed.