What Exactly Happened in the Courts to Trump's Travel Restrictions?
The 9th circuit ruling has been a bit misunderstood by a media that is averse to reporting facts and circumstances, and instead tacitly claiming Donald
Trump's executive order is unconstitutional.
We have a tendency to think of judges as impartial magistrates, that interpret and dispense the law, not politics, and hardly venture out of their jurisdiction. We think of judges not as humans, but as gods in black robes.
WHAT DID THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT RULE?
In order for the U.S. District Court in Washington to issue a temporary stay, they have to prove that residents of the state were being harmed by portions of the travel restrictions in Trump's executive order. In legal terms, they have to have "standing." Someone has to show that they have been injured by the law. The state made the claim, yet no one was injured, they essentially claimed potential injury for people who aren't citizens, and have no right to be here or travel here.
One claim is that it will harm Washington's economy, the other is it will hurt Washington University faculty and students that may be stranded. Not one instance of the latter has yet to happen to provide the grounds for legal standing for them to sue.
The harm has to be real, not hypothetical and an actual case needs to be brought before the Court. It has to affect a legal resident, or citizen to even be considered for standing. Non-citizens on US soil do have due process rights, yet no one affected, legal or nonlegal have been on US soil, obviously this EO was to keep noncitizen, terrorist aliens out.
This is why Robert's decision was devoid of any legal reasoning, or logic as to how they have standing.
Claims were also made that it violated the Equal Protection Clause and Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Though, legal precedent is clear, non-citizens not on US soil do not have constitutional rights. Period. I will repeat that till I am blue in the face.
WHAT THE 9TH CIRCUIT RULED:
It ruled that the Washington District Court does have standing to issue the temporary injunction because Washington State had invited non-citizen, non-visa holding employees that were denied travel as well as visiting scholars that were denied travel.
This is like outsourcing our national security to non-citizen, potential immigrants in foreign countries in failed states, and contain elements and ideologies that are adversarial to the United States national security interests. It's pointing towards a constitutional right to emigrate as a non-citizen from anywhere, including countries we are at war with.
It is clear, that Congress and the President have plenary power over immigration, and the President over foreign affairs. By statute this gives POTUS authority to block non-citizen potential immigrants from anywhere he wants for national security purposes. Not to mention, the restrictions are TEMPORARY for a stated purpose of bolstering security screenings.
WHAT HAPPENS NOW:
The case gets kicked back the Washington State District Court that issued the temporary injunction, where arguments will be made by the administration to hold off a permanent injunction, likely to be filed by the state. This could take months.
It will then head to the Supreme Court for final review on its Constitutionality and standing grounds.
WHY DID THIS HAPPEN:
This is not checks and balances, this is the Court taking plenary power away from Congress (the people and states), and the President in matters of national security, and sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. It is politically motivated, and leaves the US vulnerable to terrorist cells trying to infiltrate the US.