Two items of note, here. First, the opinion carefully addresses the US Supreme Court's removal of the "2.0" dispute from its own docket -- explaining that while the earlier Fourth Circuit opinions are no longer technically precedential, the reasoning found there remains sound, and so the trial court quotes it where appropriate, but enters its own conclusions of law, independently. It also relies on the Ninth Circuit's holdings, since the Supremes haven't technically vacated those yet, either.
Second, this is a preliminary injunction, nation wide -- while in contrast, the Hawaii opinion is a TRO (i.e., generally of shorter duration). This, then is the next step toward a permanent shut-down of Trump's Muslim banning schemes. Of course, 45 will appeal, but here is a bit:
. . . .At issue is whether this latest travel ban should be enjoined by this Court because it is the latest incarnation of the “Muslim ban” originally promised by President Trump as a candidate for the presidency, and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or because the issuance of the travel ban exceeds the President’s delegated authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend the entry into the United States of classes of immigrants and nonimmigrants. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that a preliminary injunction is warranted. . . .
In response to the injunctions against EO-1, President Trump maintained at a February 16, 2017 news conference that EO-1 was lawful but that a new Order would be issued. J.R. 91. Stephen Miller, Senior Policy Advisor to the President, described the changes being made to the Order as “mostly minor technical differences,” emphasizing that the “basic policies are still going to be in effect.” J.R. 319. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated that “[t]he principles of the [second] executive order remain the same”. . . .
In [its later] ruling, the Fourth Circuit described EO-2 as one that “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” Id. at 572. After finding that an individual plaintiff had standing to challenge the ban and concluding that upon a showing of bad faith it could “look behind” a proffered “facially legitimate” reason for the action, the court applied standard Establishment Clause analysis to conclude that because EO-2 “cannot be divorced from the cohesive narrative linking it to the animus that inspired it . . . the reasonable observer would likely conclude that [EO-2’s] primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs.” IRAP, 857 F.3d at 586, 590-92, 601. . . .
[Today's injunction] is limited to barring enforcement of Section 2 against those individuals “who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” Trump, 137 S. Ct. at 2088. For individuals, the injunction covers visa applications by individuals with immediate family members, such as parents, children, or siblings, as well as “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States. . . .”
Onward -- still with glimmers of hope, for my Cubbies -- and that -- at 0-3 is decidedly more hope than for any chance Mr. Trump will ever do anything sensible, or lawful.
His widely corroborated remarks to Mrs. Myeshia Johnson, the young widow of Sgt. La David T. Johnson, our brave serviceman killed in the line of duty in Niger (12 days ago -- i.e., a long silence from 45) are. . . simply deplorable.
Even so, we will look forward to Bobby Three Stick's conclusions -- near Christmas 2017.
[Masthead updated, in the sincerely-held hope that people representing Katherine Johnson will soon consent to her inclusion -- in the "NASA STEM on Fleek" a/k/a "NASA Cool Women Lego" set. . . . smile.]
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment