Foolishly, he has appealed a TRO in San Francisco (TROs are generally non-appealable). He will lose. But his makes him like 1-1-35, lifetime, in the federal courts (the lone "win" was a poorly reasoned Supreme Court plurality, on Muslim Ban 2.0). Here's a bit of why East Bay Sanctuary's TRO and preliminary injunction will stand (just filed by the plaintiffs, in the Ninth Circuit):
. . . .The government’s argument, Mot. 7-8, that Plaintiffs can simply reorient to serving those who enter at ports, is legally and factually wrong. The law does not require an organization to rearrange its mission. See Order 11. Nor as a factual matter can Plaintiffs like EBSC do so. EBSC has built a program specifically to serve asylum seekers who apply affirmatively for asylum. That program is a key part of EBSC’s mission and accounts for half its budget. EBSC does not serve people in removal proceedings -- as those apprehended at ports are -- and does not have the capacity to do so. EBSC also cannot represent asylum seekers who enter at ports because it is located far from the southern border. See ECF No. 8-7 ¶¶ 3, 8-13, 15-17. . . .
Of course, the rule itself violated 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1); an express statute prohibiting what Trump purports to do; and it is controlling US law. Make that 1-1-36, now -- for those of you keeping score at home. Onward.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment