Hawaii judge puts Trump's travel ban on hold

While the President has BROAD AUTHORITY when it comes to immigration, the President does not have the Constitutional authority to violate other aspects of the Constitution - including the Establishment Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.

And while you may believe that this judge is using leftist reasoning, you would do well to remember that a similar order was upheld, unanimously, by a 3 judge panel of the 9th panel. A panel that included a conservative appointed judge.

Trump will need to appeal this decision all the way if you wants to succeed. I do not believe that he will.

 

And now, all you Trump defenders have yet another Judge to contend with. This time in Maryland.

Trump travel ban dealt another blow by Maryland judge

 

Donald Trump called for an unconstitutional Muslim Ban. Donald Trump tried to enact said ban under the guise of a travel ban with extremely little justification. Judges don't buy the justification and they don't buy the attempt to hide the unconstitutional discrimination.

Trump loses. Again.

 

I read it. I found it wanting and overreaching. Overreaching specifically, for this post, with the nation-wide injunction that is in direct conflict with a prior ruling in another circuit. In US v AMC Entertainment the Supreme Court adressed this very issue by slamming the Trial court for acting beyond its authority.

I've clipped the opinion for brevity and emboldened the salient text.

Cheers

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1019143.html

U.S. v. AMC ENTERTAINMENT, INC•549 F.3d 760, 773 (9th Cir. 200

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

We review the district court's injunction in this matter for an abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of legal principles.  Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486, 1493 (9th Cir.1996).   A district court has considerable discretion in granting injunctive relief and in tailoring its injunctive relief.   However, a trial court abuses its discretion by fashioning an injunction which is overly broad.  Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir.1991).

Part II.C:

C. The District Court Abused Its Discretion In Issuing A Nationwide Injunction That Included The Fifth Circuit.

Once a court has obtained personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the court has the power to enforce the terms of the injunction outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, including issuing a nationwide injunction.   See Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 289, 73 S.Ct. 252, 97 L.Ed. 319 (1952) (noting that “the District Court in exercising its equity powers may command persons properly before it to cease or perform acts outside its territorial jurisdiction”);  United States v. Oregon, 657 F.2d 1009, 1016 n. 17 (9th Cir.1981) (“When a district court has jurisdiction over all parties involved, it may enjoin commission of acts outside of its district.”).   However, when exercising its equitable powers to issue an injunction, a court must be mindful of any effect its decision might have outside its jurisdiction.   Courts ordinarily should not award injunctive relief that would cause substantial interference with another court's sovereignty.  Steele, 344 U.S. at 289, 73 S.Ct. 252.

This circuit has yet to address this specific comity issue.   However, it goes without saying that we expect our pronouncements will be the final word within the Ninth Circuit's geographical area, subject only to en banc or Supreme Court review.   See Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v. Drug Emporium, Inc., 38 F.3d 477, 482 (9th Cir.1994).   Our federal judicial system requires that when the Supreme Court issues an opinion, its pronouncements become law of the land.   See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir.2001).   Similarly, when the Ninth Circuit or any of its coequal circuit courts issue an opinion, the pronouncements become the law of that geographical area.   See Zuniga v. United Can Co., 812 F.2d 443, 450 (9th Cir.1987) (noting that district courts are “bound by the law of their own circuit,” and “are not to resolve splits between circuits ․”) (citations omitted).   In instances where the circuits do not agree on the interpretation of a statute or a regulation, those disagreements should be resolved by the Supreme Court.

Based upon this judicial hierarchy, we must be mindful of the decisions of our sister circuits, when we make decisions in cases affecting litigants' legal rights and remedies in the geographic boundaries of their circuits.   For example, in Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. I.C.C., 784 F.2d 959 (9th Cir.1986), we held that a party was not collaterally estopped from relitigating the scope of a federal regulation due to the Tenth Circuit's decision on the issue.   We stated that “[t]he courts do not require an agency of the United States to accept an adverse determination of the agency's statutory construction by any of the Circuit Courts of Appeals as binding on the agency for all similar cases throughout the United States.”  Id. at 964.   We did note, however, that the review would have limited geographic impact:  “t is standard practice for an agency to litigate the same issue in more than one circuit and to seek to enforce the agency interpretation selectively on persons subject to the agency's jurisdiction in those circuits where its interpretation has not been judicially repudiated.”  Id. (emphasis added).

Our sister circuits have similarly respected another circuit's ability to disagree.   For instance, in Virginia Society for Human Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission, 263 F.3d 379 (4th Cir.2001), the Fourth Circuit refused to issue a nationwide injunction of a Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulation that would “prevent[ ] the FEC from enforcing the regulation against any party anywhere in the United States.”  Id. at 393.   The Fourth Circuit reasoned:  “The injunction also encroaches on the ability of other circuits to consider the constitutionality of [the regulation].”  Id. “Such a result conflicts with the principle that a federal court of appeal's decision is only binding within its circuit.”  Id.

We find the reasoning set forth in Railway Labor, Virginia, Carson, Herman Miller, and Las Palmas instructive, and apply it here.   Principles of comity require that, once a sister circuit has spoken to an issue, that pronouncement is the law of that geographical area.   Courts in the Ninth Circuit should not grant relief that would cause substantial interference with the established judicial pronouncements of such sister circuits.   To hold otherwise would create tension between circuits and would encourage forum shopping.   Thus, we hold the district court abused its discretion in issuing the nationwide injunction affecting the geographical area of the Fifth Circuit.

 

Think about that for a moment...there are about 2700 federal district court judges. If any one of them, selected by the person going to the court based on the political philosophy of the judge, can stop a federal action not just in his district but nation wide, then who is really governing? Should a minor federal judge elected by no one and accountable to no one, be the fellow who governs our nation? If legal precedence, the clear intent of its drafters and the actual wording of the law can be overturned by a single partisan judge, do we have a rule of law or are we in a banana republic?

 

You raise a valid point about whether a local district court judge should always attempt to limit their rulings to the least restrictive means in order to accomplish the remedy sought by the litigants. However, the situation contained in this scenario is quite unique. The immigration ban attempts to prevent anyone that originates in those six countries from entering any portion of the United States. If the district court judge in Hawaii just limited his ruling to, for example, Hawaii, then the individuals could fly to Hawaii and then fly from there to the rest of the country. Access to one part of the United States is access to the rest.

As such, demanding that this district judge limit his ruling to his local geographic area is inapplicable.

 

We have a large number of checks on your worse fear. Litigants have to establish personal jurisdiction for that judge, general jurisdiction, venue as being proper, identifiable injury, etc.

In fact, some of the aspects that you proposed - legal precedence and the US Constitution - are also checks against a District Court judge just being able to dictate for everyone.

 

What sort of "religious ban" doesn't apply to 90% of that religion's members? That would be the travel ban that Trump proposes
and that a Hawaiian judge has now blocked with specious reasoning.
The fact that the frequently overturned 9th Circuit court is of the same mind on this latest activist decision tells me the Hawaiian
decision is almost certainly wrong based on that alone.

This will be overturned once more by a higher court that actually uses established law (instead of leftist dogma) on which to base
their decision.

 

By its reading, the Executive Order could not have been religiously motivated because “the six countries represent only a small fraction of the world’s 50 Muslim-majority nations, and are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim population[...]

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. [...] Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries.

 

No. Read the Constitution. No, really... READ the Constitution. Trump is right. Even other vassal-stooge Leftist judges acknowledge the fact that President Trump has the authority to issue this LEGAL executive order. So, this time the hyperliberal judicial "bulwark" will fail....

 

I have read the Constitution. I have studied the Constitution in Law School. I have been tested on the Constitution multiple times in order to become a practicing attorney.

The reasoning noted by this judge is valid and defensible. The President has BROAD AUTHORITY to limit immigration, but it is not limitless. The President does not have the Constitutional Authority to override over aspects of the Constitution like the Establishment Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.

Have you even bothered to read the 43 page opinion or did you just assume that the President must be right because Trump said so?

Or perhaps you want to read about the Maryland Judge that also ruled against the new Trump Muslim Ban?

 

Another? With adversarial rulings on the issue from sister circuits it will be elevated to the Supreme Court rapidly.

MrTLegal I don't see this ending well for the Courts. I'm thinking that by stepping so heavily into the political branches arena we will see a political solution to the systematic problem raised. Gird your loins, District court power is about to be redefined by the legislature and the executive.

To me the idea that a District court can issue Nation-wide, ney World-wide injunctions, effecting the Executive's ability to preform it's plenary and wholly owned powers involving national security and foreign policy is irrational.

Principles to principles. If the Executive, on these security and foreign policy issues is to be estopped, it needs to be done by the Supreme Court, nothing lesser.

The President shouldn't be hobbled by forum shopping politically motivated litigants.

Our Government cannot function in the absence of Judicial restraint in this area. Its continuance is a clear and present danger to our security and makes us vulnerable.

Cheers

 

politics, not law

 

I think this is simply another example of governmental rot. We are in dire need ot judicial reform, split the 9th circuit, limit the scope of district decisions to that district and fill open seats with actual judges who still do law.

 

Do you want a Constitutional Crisis? Because that's how you get a Constitutional Crisis.

 

You do realize that the law in question has words, intent, history and precedence? It is more than giving the fringe left a warm fuzzy feeling of accomplishment in finding another political 'judge'.

 

"The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1807. FE 9:68

 

So you're saying that the District court now has the ability to issue visas, negotiate with foreign-nationals and regulate immigration? I don't think so.

I do understand your larger point however.

Cheers

 

Who made this bit of logical analysis? Certainly not you. It is much too correct and logical. Please work on your formatting (even though the point itself is a correct one).

The point is framed in a disingenuous way and no one can demonstrate how a ban of a singular religion can possibly be alleged when only 10% of that religion is effected.

No one alleges that someone can discriminate against groups as a whole
ONLY so to try and make that distinction is totally dishonest and totally misstates the issue. It doesn't bode well for the rest of the argument, either.
A ban that targets only a small percentage of any group cannot be said to be a ban on the larger group in any way at all. Period!

Too bad because that's why a claim of a ban on Muslims per se falls on it's face! It's a de facto failure and ridiculous on the most basic of levels.

This should be explained because if Trump's ban stops ALL members of any of the six targeted nations (as it does) then how are Muslims only banned (though terrorists targeted are by definition Muslims)?
Are you quoting the author of the blockade of Trump's travel ban because it seems so childishly mistaken in so many ways
it's discouraging to realize this man is in such a position of authority on the bench.

 

You are reading select quotes from the Hawaii judge's order. You are countering his reasoning by effectively saying, "Nuh uh."

The judge is evaluating whether this law was passed with a discriminatory intent or whether it has a discriminatory effect. The Government's logic fails to establish that the law was passed without a discriminatory intent or that it does not have a discriminatory effect.

 

Another thought: this is an insurgency within the judiciary. I can visualize the heated arguments within the judicial branch as we speak. I hope and pray that wiser minds get control before the harm becomes irreparable and outside forces feel compelled to act.

This continued petulant behavior, a political gambit of a few, will see a call for legislative action to reduce the power of the judiciary. I fear that comming reality, we'll all lose.

Cheers

 

All of which are pro forma when judge shopping as the court gets to decide if there are problems and if it wants to make a ruling on an issue outside of the scope of the court,, they do...often. The only thing that really prevents judicial despotism is the small number of judges and the infinity of potential issues for them to rule on. Besides, aside from the 9th, few judge act as a governing herd.

 

Fixing judicial rot is not a constitutional crisis...there is no right to corruption or judicial error.

 

The "nuh uhs" are entirely all your own as every objection I've made has been thoroughly thought out and explained at length.
If you can't understand something I'll be happy to reclarify the point.

Let me state once more how disheartening it is to realize that such sophomoric drivel was offered up by a state judge who, unfortunately, wields a great deal of judicial power. It is indeed a canary in a coal mine for a nation that is tearing itself apart.

And a ban that only effects 9% of a purported group that is supposedly being discriminated against doesn't need to explain why
it does not have a discriminatory effect because on the face of things, to most normal and rational thinking human beings,
91% of that group is not restricted in any way. Therefore, talk of a discriminatory effect is seen as clearly being ideological and
driven by obtuse partisan considerations.

The judge is undoubtedly a political hack and not a very good one at that.

 

You appeal a decision to fix judicial error or you file a bar complaint to fix corruption. You dont get the executive to replace judges just because they issued a ruling with which you disagree.

That is how you get a Constitutional Crisis.