Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

US appeals court upholds suspension of President Donald Trump's travel ban Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Have you read the judgment?

    Even from the article it says





    So it looks like they weighed it up and were not convinced there was a sufficient risk v the chaos immediate implementation brought. It doesnt say he cant ban them. Will update the link to the judgment for you to analyse.
    And yet:

    'Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

    […]

    Trump’s executive order also expressly relies on an Obama-era provision of the immigration law, Section 1187(a)(12), which governs the Visa Waiver Program. This statute empowers the executive branch to waive the documentation requirements for certain aliens. In it, Congress itself expressly discriminates based on country of origin.

    Under this provision, Congress provides that an alien is eligible for the waiver only if he or she has not been present (a) in Iraq or Syria any time after March 1, 2011; (b) in any country whose government is designated by the State Department as “repeatedly provid[ing] support for acts of international terrorism”; or (c) in any country that has been designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a country “of concern.”



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I've found one and I am part way through, I do think that what trump has done is legal and constitutional but it feels like they were wanting to fail in this appeal or the government needs a new lawyer.
    I said I linked it above. On the basis of what the arguments in the judgment were, then I can see why they lost. Roll on Supreme Court.

    He should refrain from attacking the judiciary just because he loses, he isnt above the law or the constitution. If he had spent more time streamlining and focusing the order, then it could have avoided the pitfalls. Wonder how long it will take the SC to reach a decision.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrDystopia)
    Not gonna pass the Supreme Court now. At best he can hope for a 4-4 split in which case they'll uphold the decision once more.
    All he has to do is hold off a little, it shouldn't take more than a few months for Gorsuch to be nominated even with Democratic attempts to frustrate the confirmation, at that point it's as safe as it's going to get (without waiting for Ginsberg to drop dead).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And yet:

    'Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

    […]

    Trump’s executive order also expressly relies on an Obama-era provision of the immigration law, Section 1187(a)(12), which governs the Visa Waiver Program. This statute empowers the executive branch to waive the documentation requirements for certain aliens. In it, Congress itself expressly discriminates based on country of origin.

    Under this provision, Congress provides that an alien is eligible for the waiver only if he or she has not been present (a) in Iraq or Syria any time after March 1, 2011; (b) in any country whose government is designated by the State Department as “repeatedly provid[ing] support for acts of international terrorism”; or (c) in any country that has been designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a country “of concern.”



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Is that from the judgment?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Is that from the judgment?
    No, thats from exactly where the quote cites them being from. The first one is Immigration and Nationalities Act 1965, the latter I don't know.

    The fact of the matter though is that it clearly states a right to deny access. The former allows the president to do it if he believes there is a threat (he does), the latter spells out what congress explicitly allow, which is where the initial lost of 7 is derived from.

    Those wishing it struck down need to demonstrate order unconditional or illegal, Trump's team just need to defeat their argument.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    I said I linked it above. On the basis of what the arguments in the judgment were, then I can see why they lost. Roll on Supreme Court.

    He should refrain from attacking the judiciary just because he loses, he isnt above the law or the constitution. If he had spent more time streamlining and focusing the order, then it could have avoided the pitfalls. Wonder how long it will take the SC to reach a decision.
    I had found a link before I saw your link

    I do think part of the tro could have been stayed even with the arguments made but the lawyer put them in a position where they had to say no.

    The future cases will be more interesting when it moves on from the tro onto the constitutionality of the order
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, thats from exactly where the quote cites them being from. The first one is Immigration and Nationalities Act 1965, the latter I don't know.

    The fact of the matter though is that it clearly states a right to deny access. The former allows the president to do it if he believes there is a threat (he does), the latter spells out what congress explicitly allow, which is where the initial lost of 7 is derived from.

    Those wishing it struck down need to demonstrate order unconditional or illegal, Trump's team just need to defeat their argument.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Except you need to read the judgment and look at consideration on the issue of reviewability. Just because the POTUS has been given a power, doesnt mean he can exercise it unconstitutionally.

    In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.


    This wasnt a full hearing it was on the issue of stay. The tests were different.
    They can argue the full grounds at the SC

    Our decision is guided by four questions: “ (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4)where the public interest lies.” Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). “The first two factors . . . are the most critical,” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434, and the last two steps are reached “[o]nce an applicant satisfies the first two factors,” id.at 435. We conclude that the Government has failed to clear each of the first two critical steps. We also conclude that the final two factors do not militate in favor of a stay. We emphasize, however, that our analysi s is a preliminary one. We are tasked here with deciding only whether the Government has made a strong showing of its likely success in this appeal and whether the district court’s TRO should be stayed in light of the relative hardships and the public interest. The Government has not shown that it is likely to succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States’ Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims. We express no view as to any of the States’ other claims.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    All he has to do is hold off a little, it shouldn't take more than a few months for Gorsuch to be nominated even with Democratic attempts to frustrate the confirmation, at that point it's as safe as it's going to get (without waiting for Ginsberg to drop dead).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Trump is far too impulsive to allow his precious Muslim ban to sit waiting for Gorsuch to become nominated. And even then, if he does wait months (With Democrats further delaying proceedings), where does it leave his policy? I thought US security was the whole reason behind the ban, so he says, surely he would do everything he could to push it through as fast as possible right?


    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Imagine a Supreme Court based on law not party politics
    It's definitely one of the failings, in my opinion, of the US Supreme Court. The Conservative and the Liberal sides shouldn't have a place in the court, but eh, it is what it is.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    All he has to do is hold off a little, it shouldn't take more than a few months for Gorsuch to be nominated even with Democratic attempts to frustrate the confirmation, at that point it's as safe as it's going to get (without waiting for Ginsberg to drop dead).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    At this stage the Court of Appeals decision is a solid one. This isn't going to end up 4-4 in the Supreme Court. Trump doesn't stand a prayer of convincing the Chief Justice or Kennedy. Thomas has always been very alive to laws that appear to be neutral but are in reality discriminatory. Alito is Trump's best bet, but this isn't a subject on which Alito appears particularly engaged. Trump could find this a unanimous loss. Gorsuch when appointed would be with Roberts on this.

    It isn't difficult to see what Trump should do next.

    First of all, he, not White House counsel, needs to amend the Executive Order to confirm it doesn't apply to permanent residents.

    Next he needs to think very carefully whether he wants to include family members of US citizens and permanent residents and also returning temporary residents. He is in danger of being in a worse position than when he started this. Aliens with an existing connection to the USA have due process rights but they have to have a substantive right to protect with their due process rights. The courts have been very reluctant to concede there is a right to a visa. Trump should exclude from the EO any group where there is a real risk the courts may decide they might have substantive rights. If he does that, this renders all of the plaintiffs' fifth amendment argument (the plaintiffs' best argument) moot.

    He has got to win the argument that this isn't a Muslim ban and he can't win that merely by appealing to the text of the EO.

    He needs to start applying to transfer all the cases to a single court. If the cases are heard the length and breadth of America there will be conflicting decisions on whether or not this is a (or the) Muslim ban.






    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    God forbid there is a terrorist attack committed by someone from one of those 7 countries, Trump is gunna flip his lid :afraid:
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    At this stage the Court of Appeals decision is a solid one. This isn't going to end up 4-4 in the Supreme Court. Trump doesn't stand a prayer of convincing the Chief Justice or Kennedy. Thomas has always been very alive to laws that appear to be neutral but are in reality discriminatory. Alito is Trump's best bet, but this isn't a subject on which Alito appears particularly engaged. Trump could find this a unanimous loss. Gorsuch when appointed would be with Roberts on this.

    It isn't difficult to see what Trump should do next.

    First of all, he, not White House counsel, needs to amend the Executive Order to confirm it doesn't apply to permanent residents.

    Next he needs to think very carefully whether he wants to include family members of US citizens and permanent residents and also returning temporary residents. He is in danger of being in a worse position than when he started this. Aliens with an existing connection to the USA have due process rights but they have to have a substantive right to protect with their due process rights. The courts have been very reluctant to concede there is a right to a visa. Trump should exclude from the EO any group where there is a real risk the courts may decide they might have substantive rights. If he does that, this renders all of the plaintiffs' fifth amendment argument (the plaintiffs' best argument) moot.

    He has got to win the argument that this isn't a Muslim ban and he can't win that merely by appealing to the text of the EO.

    He needs to start applying to transfer all the cases to a single court. If the cases are heard the length and breadth of America there will be conflicting decisions on whether or not this is a (or the) Muslim ban.






    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If he'd thought about his order in the first place and taken advice, then he wouldnt be in this situation. Its almost as though he cant accept he can do anything wrong and that as POTUS he is above due process. I think he might be too stubborn to change anything because in running his business he expects total obedience.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    If he'd thought about his order in the first place and taken advice, then he wouldnt be in this situation. Its almost as though he cant accept he can do anything wrong and that as POTUS he is above due process. I think he might be too stubborn to change anything because in running his business he expects total obedience.
    I read a very interesting article that Trump's supporters regard any statement by him as an "opening bargaining position" rather than a statement of what he intends to do. The Chinese have understood this, hence they did not lose their heads when he threatened to recognise Taiwan and now he has said he isn't. The Israelis have seen the other side of this when he has left them in the lurch over settlements (Theresa take note). This case may well show whether a President can do this. Does a threat to impose a Muslim ban mean that the President intended to introduce a Muslim ban and so he acted for an improper purpose when he introduces something that disproportionately affects Muslims? Or is what Trump says of no probative value as to what Trump intends?

    If this is the position, the world has got a lot more dangerous. No-one doubted that Kennedy would have enforced his will over the Cuban missile crisis by starting a shooting war and that is why one didn't happen. No-one doubted that Chamberlain was going to war in September 1939. Do the North Korean leadership really believe that Trump will destroy them and their country? Does South Korea and Japan? Ultimately the Falklands War happened because the British government didn't realise they were sending a signal about lack of resolve by withdrawing an ice patrol ship on purely financial grounds.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I read a very interesting article that Trump's supporters regard any statement by him as an "opening bargaining position" rather than a statement of what he intends to do. The Chinese have understood this, hence they did not lose their heads when he threatened to recognise Taiwan and now he has said he isn't. The Israelis have seen the other side of this when he has left them in the lurch over settlements (Theresa take note). This case may well show whether a President can do this. Does a threat to impose a Muslim ban mean that the President intended to introduce a Muslim ban and so he acted for an improper purpose when he introduces something that disproportionately affects Muslims? Or is what Trump says of no probative value as to what Trump intends?

    If this is the position, the world has got a lot more dangerous. No-one doubted that Kennedy would have enforced his will over the Cuban missile crisis by starting a shooting war and that is why one didn't happen. No-one doubted that Chamberlain was going to war in September 1939. Do the North Korean leadership really believe that Trump will destroy them and their country? Does South Korea and Japan? Ultimately the Falklands War happened because the British government didn't realise they were sending a signal about lack of resolve by withdrawing an ice patrol ship on purely financial grounds.
    I agree that is the way we are going. i was fascinated by the comments on their approach in the debates as Trump being a salesman and Clinton a lawyer. He can certainly make big claims, which appeal to his core supporters. It will be interesting to see how many he can deliver on in the next 4-8 years.

    I'm also interested to see how he deals with some people saying no and whether his response will be to try and destroy/ tweet them to death.

    There have been news stories today that he is talking to and backing the Chinese again after causing some alarm over Taiwan. It will be interesting to see whether he can manage international diplomacy in the same way as his property deals. Think he might find they are quite different beasts.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Except you need to read the judgment and look at consideration on the issue of reviewability. Just because the POTUS has been given a power, doesnt mean he can exercise it unconstitutionally.
    With it being unconstitutional according to which part of the constitution?

    (Original post by MrDystopia)
    Trump is far too impulsive to allow his precious Muslim ban to sit waiting for Gorsuch to become nominated. And even then, if he does wait months (With Democrats further delaying proceedings), where does it leave his policy? I thought US security was the whole reason behind the ban, so he says, surely he would do everything he could to push it through as fast as possible right?




    It's definitely one of the failings, in my opinion, of the US Supreme Court. The Conservative and the Liberal sides shouldn't have a place in the court, but eh, it is what it is.
    To push it through as fast as possible would require him to accept defeat, rescind the order, and fix it, something he cannot abide
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    With it being unconstitutional according to which part of the constitution?



    To push it through as fast as possible would require him to accept defeat, rescind the order, and fix it, something he cannot abide
    Read the judgment. There are a number of constitutional questions.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 10, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.