[FONT="]Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona introduced legislation last month to carve six states out of the San Francisco-based court circuit and create a brand new 12th Circuit.[/FONT]
[FONT="]They argue that the 9th is too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases. If they succeed, only California, Oregon, Hawaii and two island districts would remain in the 9th's judicial fiefdom. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Right now, Flake said, the circuit is far too sprawling. [/FONT]
[FONT="]“It represents 20 percent of the population -- and 40 percent of the land mass is in that jurisdiction. It’s just too big,” Flake told Fox News on Wednesday. “We have a bedrock principle of swift justice and if you live in Arizona or anywhere in the 9th Circuit, you just don’t have it.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]Flake says it typically takes the court 15 months to hand down a decision.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“It’s far too long,” he added. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Conservatives have mocked the 9th Circuit for years, often calling it the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because so many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The court has a reputation as one of the most liberal in the country, in large part because of its makeup. Eighteen of the court’s 25 active judges have been appointed by Democrats. Former President George W. Bush appointed six justices, while former President Barack Obama appointed seven.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]They argue that the 9th is too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases. If they succeed, only California, Oregon, Hawaii and two island districts would remain in the 9th's judicial fiefdom. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Right now, Flake said, the circuit is far too sprawling. [/FONT]
[FONT="]“It represents 20 percent of the population -- and 40 percent of the land mass is in that jurisdiction. It’s just too big,” Flake told Fox News on Wednesday. “We have a bedrock principle of swift justice and if you live in Arizona or anywhere in the 9th Circuit, you just don’t have it.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]Flake says it typically takes the court 15 months to hand down a decision.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“It’s far too long,” he added. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Conservatives have mocked the 9th Circuit for years, often calling it the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because so many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The court has a reputation as one of the most liberal in the country, in large part because of its makeup. Eighteen of the court’s 25 active judges have been appointed by Democrats. Former President George W. Bush appointed six justices, while former President Barack Obama appointed seven.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Under Flake’s bill, the new circuit would cover Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Arizona and Alaska, leaving the 9th with three Pacific states as well as the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam.[/FONT]
[FONT="]A separate House version introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs and four other Arizona Republicans would leave Washington state in the 9th Circuit.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Congressional efforts to split the circuit go back to 1941.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“The problem is the judges in the 9th Circuit, particularly the liberal judges, don’t want to give up any of their jurisdiction,” Flake said. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Congress created the court in 1891. At the time, the area was sparsely inhabited – only four percent of the U.S. population lived in the area compared to today’s 20 percent.[/FONT]
[FONT="]In 1998, Congress appointed a commission to reexamine the federal appeals courts’ structure. The commission ultimately recommended against splitting the 9th Circuit.[/FONT]
[FONT="]But carving up the large circuit isn’t out of the realm of possibility. In 1929, Congress split the 8th Circuit to accommodate a population boom and increased caseloads.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Democratic strategist Joe Lestingi pushed back on accusations the court leans left.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“We don’t complain about courts being too conservative,” he told Fox News. “The truth is… the liberal side of that court provides the conflict we need to settle our most basic disagreements.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]He added that the 9th Circuit’s track record of rulings being overturned -- sometimes unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court -- is all part of the judicial process.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“If the Supreme Court wasn’t going to overturn lower courts' decisions, then we don’t need a Supreme Court anymore,” Lestingi argued. [/FONT]
[FONT="]A separate House version introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs and four other Arizona Republicans would leave Washington state in the 9th Circuit.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Congressional efforts to split the circuit go back to 1941.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“The problem is the judges in the 9th Circuit, particularly the liberal judges, don’t want to give up any of their jurisdiction,” Flake said. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Congress created the court in 1891. At the time, the area was sparsely inhabited – only four percent of the U.S. population lived in the area compared to today’s 20 percent.[/FONT]
[FONT="]In 1998, Congress appointed a commission to reexamine the federal appeals courts’ structure. The commission ultimately recommended against splitting the 9th Circuit.[/FONT]
[FONT="]But carving up the large circuit isn’t out of the realm of possibility. In 1929, Congress split the 8th Circuit to accommodate a population boom and increased caseloads.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Democratic strategist Joe Lestingi pushed back on accusations the court leans left.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“We don’t complain about courts being too conservative,” he told Fox News. “The truth is… the liberal side of that court provides the conflict we need to settle our most basic disagreements.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]He added that the 9th Circuit’s track record of rulings being overturned -- sometimes unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court -- is all part of the judicial process.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“If the Supreme Court wasn’t going to overturn lower courts' decisions, then we don’t need a Supreme Court anymore,” Lestingi argued. [/FONT]
Even if he is ultimately unsuccessful, he has made the gesture, which the apparent majority of Americans support as a national-security measure.
His opponents will bear the responsibility if there are any incidents that could arguably have been avoided if his measure had not been challenged. Senator Schumer and others will regret their fatuous histrionics (“The statue of Liberty is weeping,” as Mr. Schumer himself pretended to do).
The whole escapade reeks of the sleazy Left, which, in the Congress, the press, academia, and the entertainment world, is almost all that is left of the fierce opposition to Mr. Trump. Jay Inslee, the smug, verbose, banal governor of Washington state, who was filibustering interviewers last week, went judge-shopping to get this silly stay order on Trump’s 90-day partial-entry ban.
Mr. Inslee found the inane, posturing rogue judge James Robart, who is a George W. Bush appointee, which the local Democrats trumpet as proof of his impartiality, and who could be relied upon to produce a provokingly hostile judgment. Judge Robart decreed that his ruling covered the entire country — quite a reach for a federal district judge.
His opponents will bear the responsibility if there are any incidents that could arguably have been avoided if his measure had not been challenged. Senator Schumer and others will regret their fatuous histrionics (“The statue of Liberty is weeping,” as Mr. Schumer himself pretended to do).
The whole escapade reeks of the sleazy Left, which, in the Congress, the press, academia, and the entertainment world, is almost all that is left of the fierce opposition to Mr. Trump. Jay Inslee, the smug, verbose, banal governor of Washington state, who was filibustering interviewers last week, went judge-shopping to get this silly stay order on Trump’s 90-day partial-entry ban.
Mr. Inslee found the inane, posturing rogue judge James Robart, who is a George W. Bush appointee, which the local Democrats trumpet as proof of his impartiality, and who could be relied upon to produce a provokingly hostile judgment. Judge Robart decreed that his ruling covered the entire country — quite a reach for a federal district judge.
[h=1]Why the Ninth Circuit Got It Wrong[/h]
By Hans A. von Spakovsky
Published February 09, 2017 | FoxNews.com
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court has repeated the mistakes made by the district court judge who stayed President Trump's executive order (EO) temporarily suspending visas from seven terrorist havens.
Both the judge in Washington State and the San Francisco-based circuit court have now refused to recognize the authority of Congress and the president to make this national security decision.
Neither the judge in Washington State nor the court has offered anything approaching a detailed discussion of 8 U.SC. §1182 (f), the law which specifically gives the president authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. if he believes their entry would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States." Unless this statutory provision is unconstitutional, the president has acted completely within the law.
The Ninth Circuit gives lip service to the fact that "courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches - an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence."
Inexplicably, it then proceeds to give no deference to the president’s policy determination that a temporary suspension is necessary to ensure that adequate vetting procedures are in place.
The court also gives no deference to the decision of Congress to delegate its plenary power over immigration to the president on this issue.
The Ninth Circuit also claims that there is "no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States." But as Washington Examiner journalist Byron York reports, that’s simply not true. In fact, there is plenty of this sort of evidence:
Last year the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released information showing that at least 60 people born in the seven countries had been convicted — not just arrested, but convicted — of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. And that number did not include more recent cases like Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who wounded 11 people during a machete attack on the campus of Ohio State University last November.
Instead of discussing the relevant statute under which the president acted, the Ninth Circuit instead engages in an extensive discussion of its concern that the executive branch is failing to provide due process to aliens barred from entry into the United States. While it can certainly be argued that permanent resident aliens may have certain due process rights before their residency status can be cancelled, the White House has already said the order does not apply to permanent residents.
The court's apparent opinion that other aliens who don't live in the U.S. have due process rights if they are refused entry can only be true if they have a constitutional right to enter the U.S. That is an absurd proposition yet that is the end result of the court's opinion: that a foreign alien can demand a hearing and due process rights if one of our embassies refuses to give the alien a visa.
So far in the numerous lawsuits that have been filed against this EO, the only Federal judge to get it right is Nathaniel Gorton of the District Court of Massachusetts.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
By Hans A. von Spakovsky
Published February 09, 2017 | FoxNews.com
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court has repeated the mistakes made by the district court judge who stayed President Trump's executive order (EO) temporarily suspending visas from seven terrorist havens.
Both the judge in Washington State and the San Francisco-based circuit court have now refused to recognize the authority of Congress and the president to make this national security decision.
Neither the judge in Washington State nor the court has offered anything approaching a detailed discussion of 8 U.SC. §1182 (f), the law which specifically gives the president authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. if he believes their entry would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States." Unless this statutory provision is unconstitutional, the president has acted completely within the law.
The Ninth Circuit gives lip service to the fact that "courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches - an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence."
Inexplicably, it then proceeds to give no deference to the president’s policy determination that a temporary suspension is necessary to ensure that adequate vetting procedures are in place.
The court also gives no deference to the decision of Congress to delegate its plenary power over immigration to the president on this issue.
The Ninth Circuit also claims that there is "no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States." But as Washington Examiner journalist Byron York reports, that’s simply not true. In fact, there is plenty of this sort of evidence:
Last year the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released information showing that at least 60 people born in the seven countries had been convicted — not just arrested, but convicted — of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. And that number did not include more recent cases like Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who wounded 11 people during a machete attack on the campus of Ohio State University last November.
Instead of discussing the relevant statute under which the president acted, the Ninth Circuit instead engages in an extensive discussion of its concern that the executive branch is failing to provide due process to aliens barred from entry into the United States. While it can certainly be argued that permanent resident aliens may have certain due process rights before their residency status can be cancelled, the White House has already said the order does not apply to permanent residents.
The court's apparent opinion that other aliens who don't live in the U.S. have due process rights if they are refused entry can only be true if they have a constitutional right to enter the U.S. That is an absurd proposition yet that is the end result of the court's opinion: that a foreign alien can demand a hearing and due process rights if one of our embassies refuses to give the alien a visa.
So far in the numerous lawsuits that have been filed against this EO, the only Federal judge to get it right is Nathaniel Gorton of the District Court of Massachusetts.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 9, 2017 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN IMMIGRATION, JURISPRUDENCE
[h=1]9TH CIRCUIT’S OPINION IS WRONG, BUT ITS IMPACT IS LIMITED[/h]
As Paul has already noted, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the government’s motion for an emergency stay of the order entered by Judge James Robart blocking implementation of President Trump’s temporary travel ban. The decision is a bad one, I think, but it also has only limited import and won’t stand in the way of more carefully crafted orders to be issued in the future.
First of all, there is simply no doubt about the fact that the president can by order suspend immigration from any country or group of countries. Remarkably, the Ninth Circuit decision fails ever to mention the relevant portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f), which provides:
What, then, did it do? The three judges found that there was a likelihood that someone’s due process rights could be violated by the order. The people in question are not citizens of the seven countries who have never been to the United States, and now want to travel or immigrate here. Those people have no rights under our Constitution, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held. Rather, the 9th Circuit panel seized on the idea that a few people covered by the order–those who have come here legally already, and now want to return–have constitutional due process rights:
The 9th Circuit panel adopted the anti-Trump view of this situation, and took the position that if there is a single person with due process rights who is affected by the order, the entire order can be blocked:
The battle will go on. As Paul urges, the administration might go straight to the Supreme Court. But bear in mind that all the 9th Circuit has done is to deny a motion for an emergency stay, based on “the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage.” I think the administration could pretty easily tweak Trump’s order to meet the relatively minor objections the plaintiffs have put forward, and create a record in the trial court that would make it difficult for even the 9th Circuit (this is known as “judge shopping” by the plaintiffs, by the way) to stand in the way. In the meantime, let’s confirm Justice Gorsuch, just in case the Democrats try to execute a judicial coup.
[h=1]9TH CIRCUIT’S OPINION IS WRONG, BUT ITS IMPACT IS LIMITED[/h]
As Paul has already noted, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the government’s motion for an emergency stay of the order entered by Judge James Robart blocking implementation of President Trump’s temporary travel ban. The decision is a bad one, I think, but it also has only limited import and won’t stand in the way of more carefully crafted orders to be issued in the future.
First of all, there is simply no doubt about the fact that the president can by order suspend immigration from any country or group of countries. Remarkably, the Ninth Circuit decision fails ever to mention the relevant portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f), which provides:
(f) 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.
The 9th Circuit opinion does not in any fundamental way challenge President Trump’s power to do what he did: stop travel and immigration from certain designated countries.
What, then, did it do? The three judges found that there was a likelihood that someone’s due process rights could be violated by the order. The people in question are not citizens of the seven countries who have never been to the United States, and now want to travel or immigrate here. Those people have no rights under our Constitution, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held. Rather, the 9th Circuit panel seized on the idea that a few people covered by the order–those who have come here legally already, and now want to return–have constitutional due process rights:
The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982).
So the situation, as viewed by the 9th Circuit panel, is thus: President Trump’s order is overbroad, because it affects, without providing a hearing or other due process, a small number of people who have constitutional rights, like those who are trying to reenter the U.S. after traveling abroad. The administration, on the other hand, argued that it is Judge Robart’s order that is overbroad: it blocks the entire implementation of Trump’s travel order, even though that order is unquestionably valid as to the vast majority of those affected.
The 9th Circuit panel adopted the anti-Trump view of this situation, and took the position that if there is a single person with due process rights who is affected by the order, the entire order can be blocked:
[T]he Government argues that the TRO is overbroad in two independent respects: (1) the TRO extends beyond lawful permanent residents, and covers aliens who cannot assert cognizable liberty interests in connection with travelling into and out of the United States, and (2) the TRO applies nationwide, and enjoins application of the Executive Order outside Washington and Minnesota. We decline to modify the scope of the TRO in either respect.
First, we decline to limit the scope of the TRO to lawful permanent residents and the additional category more recently suggested by the Government, in its reply memorandum, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.” That limitation on its face omits aliens who are in the United States unlawfully, and those individuals have due process rights as well. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693. That would also omit claims by citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens’ ability to travel to the United States. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2139 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (six Justices declining to adopt a rule that would categorically bar U.S. citizens from asserting cognizable liberty interests in the receipt of visas by alien spouses). There might be persons covered by the TRO who do not have viable due process claims, but the Government’s proposed revision leaves out at least some who do.
So, the 9th Circuit reasons, Trump’s order might be valid as to 99% of those affected, but if there are 1% who have due process rights, the entire order must be voided. This strikes me as a radical approach.First, we decline to limit the scope of the TRO to lawful permanent residents and the additional category more recently suggested by the Government, in its reply memorandum, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.” That limitation on its face omits aliens who are in the United States unlawfully, and those individuals have due process rights as well. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693. That would also omit claims by citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens’ ability to travel to the United States. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2139 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (six Justices declining to adopt a rule that would categorically bar U.S. citizens from asserting cognizable liberty interests in the receipt of visas by alien spouses). There might be persons covered by the TRO who do not have viable due process claims, but the Government’s proposed revision leaves out at least some who do.
The battle will go on. As Paul urges, the administration might go straight to the Supreme Court. But bear in mind that all the 9th Circuit has done is to deny a motion for an emergency stay, based on “the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage.” I think the administration could pretty easily tweak Trump’s order to meet the relatively minor objections the plaintiffs have put forward, and create a record in the trial court that would make it difficult for even the 9th Circuit (this is known as “judge shopping” by the plaintiffs, by the way) to stand in the way. In the meantime, let’s confirm Justice Gorsuch, just in case the Democrats try to execute a judicial coup.
This is one of the more preposterous judicial rulings I can think of. The president doesn’t have to wait for completed attacks to protect the U.S. from dangerous immigrants and these idiot justices think that is some big legal point.
Keep in mind that the 9th Circuit has a 77% percent reversal rate when their cases are heard by SCOTUS. That's just incredible.
Keep in mind that the 9th Circuit has a 77% percent reversal rate when their cases are heard by SCOTUS. That's just incredible.
Their ruling should surprise no one. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,
is based in San Francisco.
It routinely is the most overturned court in the U.S. In 2012, the
Supreme Court reversed 86 percent of the rulings it reviewed from the ninth.
Perhaps the most controversial decision was striking down the Pledge of Allegiance
due to the phrase “under God.” It also ruled citizens have no constitutional right
to own guns and is often over-ruled when showing its disdain for capital punishment.
is based in San Francisco.
It routinely is the most overturned court in the U.S. In 2012, the
Supreme Court reversed 86 percent of the rulings it reviewed from the ninth.
Perhaps the most controversial decision was striking down the Pledge of Allegiance
due to the phrase “under God.” It also ruled citizens have no constitutional right
to own guns and is often over-ruled when showing its disdain for capital punishment.
[h=1]Trump says a 'brand new' immigration order could come as soon as MONDAY – as the White House looks to beg off a Supreme Court fight and craft a new plan to stop immigration from 'terror' countries[/h]
- A federal appeals court in San Francisco released its ruling tonight on President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban - saying it would not reinstate it
- Trump said one option is to simply file a brand new order
- He told reporters traveling aboard Air Force One that 'we need speed for reasons of security'
- He also said of court case that knocked down his order: 'We will win that battle'
- Trump responded to this week's court panel ruling by taking to Twitter and writing in all caps: 'SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!'
- He also called the ruling 'disgraceful'
- The president also told reporters in the West Wing Thursday night that the ruling was a 'political decision'
- Now the White House is also saying that rewriting the order isn't 'off the table'
- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided it would not block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban
- Last week, a Seattle-based judge issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban after Washington state and Minnesota sued the U.S. government
President Donald Trump says he could execute a new immigration order within days, as his administration looks to quickly move beyond a defeat in a federal appeals court in San Francisco.
Trump made the comments aboard Air Force One en route to Mar-a-Lago, as his team grapples with a court panel's ruling Wednesday that kept a stay in place that prevents the government from enforcing his new 90-day ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations.
Trump was defiant on Twitter about the 'disgraceful' ruling, which he vowed to fight, even as he suggested his administration is pursuing other ways to try to get around it.
He said he is confident he'll win in court, but 'We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order,' the Associated Press reported.
+7
President Donald Trump told reporters traveling with him to Florida that he is considering 'just filing a brand new order' as a way of responding to a federal appeals court panel that halted his new immigration order
'We need speed for reasons of security. So it could very well be that we do that,' Trump said.
Referring to the court case that knocked down his order, Trump said, 'We will win that battle. The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order.'
The administration has decided not to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, The Hill and other outlets reported. Under such an appeal, this week's ruling by a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel would have gone before the evenly-divided 4-4 Supreme Court. A tie ruling would have let the initial ruling stand, potentially leavin the administration in a weaker position.
Drafters could try to craft an order that would better withstand judicial scrutiny, including claims that it discriminates based on religion, in part due to Trump's earlier claims that he would instate a 'Muslim ban.'
But Trump indicated it might just be tinkering.
The new order would likely change 'very little' from the original. The new action could come Monday or Tuesday, just as Trump returns from his Florida weekend, where he plans to golf with the Japanese prime minister.
'I'd like to surprise you,' Trump said.
Earlier Friday, the White House floated the idea of countering a stunning appeals court ruling that set back Trump's immigration order – redrafting the order in a way that could take effect immediately and be more resistant to legal challenge.
President Trump signaled an unmistakable instinct to fight for his original order Thursday night when bluntly told opponents: 'See you in court!' after criticizing judges who stood in his path.
+7
President Trump made his comments aboard Air Force One while traveling to Florida with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe
+7
President Donald Trump has used Twitter over the last few days to try and encourage the three judge panel to rule in his way. Now, the White House is signaling that redrafting the order isn't 'off the table'
But now, the White House is also laying out an alternative path. Asked if the president was considering signing a new executive order on immigration, a White House official told CNN, ''Nothing's off the table.'
CNN's Jim Acosta added on air Friday morning, 'They may go back and revise this executive order that that is a possibility that no options are being essentially taken off the table at this point.'
By redrafting the order, the White House could conceivably try to correct several elements of the order that have drawn scrutiny in court.
NBC reported Friday that White House attorneys were already engaged in the effort. Options include continuing the court fight that Trump has vowed or signing a new order 'very soon.'
Plaintiffs have argued that the order essentially codifies Trump's campaign 'Muslim ban,' which he overtly campaigned on, then describing it in new terms as the campaign wore on.
The existing order includes only seven countries where Muslims are the vast majority. It also provides a special carveout for religious minorities in those countries, a provision that would help Christians facing persecution.
State governments have also complained about the hasty drafting of the order, and how it placed a burden by blocking speakers, lecturers, and students from affected countries with legitimate visas. These and other elements might be able to be tweaked to better insulate the order.
In its Thursday ruling, the 9th Circuit court of appeals noted the interest in the free flow of travel that avoids separation of families and 'freedom from discrimination.'
Trump blasted the decision with a comment from the Lawfare blog that the court opinion didn't even bother to cite the statute. 'A disgraceful decision!' Trump wrote.
Trump made the comments aboard Air Force One en route to Mar-a-Lago, as his team grapples with a court panel's ruling Wednesday that kept a stay in place that prevents the government from enforcing his new 90-day ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations.
Trump was defiant on Twitter about the 'disgraceful' ruling, which he vowed to fight, even as he suggested his administration is pursuing other ways to try to get around it.
He said he is confident he'll win in court, but 'We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order,' the Associated Press reported.
+7
President Donald Trump told reporters traveling with him to Florida that he is considering 'just filing a brand new order' as a way of responding to a federal appeals court panel that halted his new immigration order
'We need speed for reasons of security. So it could very well be that we do that,' Trump said.
Referring to the court case that knocked down his order, Trump said, 'We will win that battle. The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order.'
The administration has decided not to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, The Hill and other outlets reported. Under such an appeal, this week's ruling by a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel would have gone before the evenly-divided 4-4 Supreme Court. A tie ruling would have let the initial ruling stand, potentially leavin the administration in a weaker position.
Drafters could try to craft an order that would better withstand judicial scrutiny, including claims that it discriminates based on religion, in part due to Trump's earlier claims that he would instate a 'Muslim ban.'
But Trump indicated it might just be tinkering.
The new order would likely change 'very little' from the original. The new action could come Monday or Tuesday, just as Trump returns from his Florida weekend, where he plans to golf with the Japanese prime minister.
'I'd like to surprise you,' Trump said.
Earlier Friday, the White House floated the idea of countering a stunning appeals court ruling that set back Trump's immigration order – redrafting the order in a way that could take effect immediately and be more resistant to legal challenge.
President Trump signaled an unmistakable instinct to fight for his original order Thursday night when bluntly told opponents: 'See you in court!' after criticizing judges who stood in his path.
+7
President Trump made his comments aboard Air Force One while traveling to Florida with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe
+7
President Donald Trump has used Twitter over the last few days to try and encourage the three judge panel to rule in his way. Now, the White House is signaling that redrafting the order isn't 'off the table'
But now, the White House is also laying out an alternative path. Asked if the president was considering signing a new executive order on immigration, a White House official told CNN, ''Nothing's off the table.'
CNN's Jim Acosta added on air Friday morning, 'They may go back and revise this executive order that that is a possibility that no options are being essentially taken off the table at this point.'
By redrafting the order, the White House could conceivably try to correct several elements of the order that have drawn scrutiny in court.
NBC reported Friday that White House attorneys were already engaged in the effort. Options include continuing the court fight that Trump has vowed or signing a new order 'very soon.'
Plaintiffs have argued that the order essentially codifies Trump's campaign 'Muslim ban,' which he overtly campaigned on, then describing it in new terms as the campaign wore on.
The existing order includes only seven countries where Muslims are the vast majority. It also provides a special carveout for religious minorities in those countries, a provision that would help Christians facing persecution.
State governments have also complained about the hasty drafting of the order, and how it placed a burden by blocking speakers, lecturers, and students from affected countries with legitimate visas. These and other elements might be able to be tweaked to better insulate the order.
In its Thursday ruling, the 9th Circuit court of appeals noted the interest in the free flow of travel that avoids separation of families and 'freedom from discrimination.'
Trump blasted the decision with a comment from the Lawfare blog that the court opinion didn't even bother to cite the statute. 'A disgraceful decision!' Trump wrote.
[h=1]Trump Will Issue New Travel Order Instead of Fighting Case in Court[/h]
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department told a federal appeals court on Thursday that it would not seek a rehearing of a decision that shut down President Trump’s targeted travel ban. Instead, the administration will start from scratch, issuing a new executive order, the department said.
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department told a federal appeals court on Thursday that it would not seek a rehearing of a decision that shut down President Trump’s targeted travel ban. Instead, the administration will start from scratch, issuing a new executive order, the department said.
