Threats Against Judges in Travel Ban Case Spark Increased Security

Judges who upheld a ban on Trump’s executive order on immigration have been given increased security after receiving a series of threats against their safety. The justices could rule in a matter of days, but Feuer said it would probably take them up to two weeks to issue their order.

Of course, there’s now an even split between conservative justices and liberal justices on the Supreme Court, and Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, is nowhere close to confirmation. But if it sent back to the Seattle judge, the case could eventually come back to the Ninth District appeals court and, theoretically, could be appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeals-court judges-William Canby, Richard Clifton, and Michelle Friedland-disagreed.

You have to wonder: What ever made Trump think he could issue this order without an extreme vetting from the judiciary?

On the other hand, people affected by the executive order would be substantially injured if the restraining order were lifted and the executive order reimplemented, because they couldn’t travel freely and would be separated from their families and homes, and they have an interest in freedom from religious discrimination, the judges concluded.

Those opposed to the White House decree also cite the Constitution, saying that the executive order violates its fundamental principles including those on equality, freedom of movement and freedom of religion.

According to Fox News, Republican Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain, both from Arizona, have introduced a bill that would add a new 12th Circuit covering six states now under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. The thing is, San Francisco’s Court of Appeals is pretty liberal; there are 18 judges nominated by Democratic presidents versus just 7 judges nominated by Republican presidents.

The judicial proceedings that Mr. Trump has disparaged are essential to the balance of power and the rule of law. But this is not “politics” in the sense used by Mr. Trump, who once again displays an inability or unwillingness to make careful and crucial distinctions – especially via tweet.

Trump chastised Robart as a “so-called judge”, and vowed to defend his immigration policy, saying it would be the judge’s fault if any attack on USA soil was carried out during the time the action was blocked.

But while Trump’s imminent-threat narrative might push him toward an immediate Supreme Court appeal, he would face long odds.

The lower court action so far is temporary and hasn’t resolved broader questions about the legality of Trump’s order. Those holdings are important and are likely to survive in the Supreme Court. “Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all”.

“There are nearly surely four votes to deny an emergency request to reinstate the order”, said Peter Spiro, a law professor at Temple University.

The opinion could also be read as a sign that Trump’s continued denigration of federal judges and the courts, questioning their legitimacy and motives, will not go without a cost for the president.

“They should have lost”.

The move comes after almost two weeks of protests and legal challenges from the states of Washington and Minnesota.

The Justice Department’s brief opposing the states’ request for an injunction is due Wednesday, with the states’ response to that due two days later.

“We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay”, the panel, from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote in the decision Thursday. But it also has to be strong against anyone or any government branch that defies the Constitution.

Members of a federal appeals court panel on Tuesday appeared skeptical while questioning a Justice Department lawyer about President Donald Trump’s power to enact a temporary travel ban on some immigrants in the name of national security.

After the decision comes from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, whatever the outcome may be, either side could then appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.