Thread: Has Trump finally found a court that will endorse the travel ban once and for all?

Has Trump finally found a court that will endorse the travel ban once and for all?

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Updated 8:06 AM ET, Sun June 4, 2017
Travel ban to head to Supreme Court

Story highlights

The court is likely to act on the government's requests sometime in June
As usual, Justice Anthony Kennedy could be the decider-in-chief

(CNN)With a stroke of a pen in January, President Donald Trump triggered chaos as lawful permanent residents, refugees and others seeking entry suddenly found themselves in a legal no man's land, stuck between the US border and the President's executive order on immigration.

Now, after the courts have blocked the order and the President has issued a revised edition, the Department of Justice has gone to the Supreme Court.

Has the President finally found a court that will endorse the legal underpinnings of the travel ban and allow it to go into effect?

In legal briefs filed at 10:51 p.m. ET Thursday night, acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall asked the court for two things: allow the ban to go into effect now and hear arguments concerning its legality next fall.

Many believe the justices will ultimately want to review the lower court opinions that struck down a major initiative of the Executive Branch. But would they allow the ban to go into effect immediately, before they even have the opportunity to hear arguments?

As the court contemplates the government's requests -- and the country and much of the world waits -- legal experts are in overdrive exploring potential off ramps for the justices. As usual, Justice Anthony Kennedy could be the decider-in-chief.
Should the ban go into effect immediately?

The first request the government makes -- asking for the court to put a hold on the lower courts' injunctions -- might be an uphill climb.

One factor the justices will consider is whether "irreparable harm" would result from a denial of the government's request, keeping the lower courts' injunctions on the ban in place.

Late Friday afternoon, the justices asked the challengers to respond to the government's petition.

The challengers are likely to point out that since the revised travel ban was blocked before it could ever go into effect, there can't be any "irreparable harm" in maintaining the status quo.

That might doom the government's application.

But what if the court did grant the government's request and allowed the ban to go into effect now? That could unleash an unusual circumstance because of the travel ban's unique time limitation.

The ban suspends entry for 90 days for those seeking entry from 6 Muslim-majority countries. So, if the court allows it to go into effect immediately, by the time the justices hear the case next fall, the ban will have expired.

"At that point, the case may very well be moot," wrote Leah Litman, an assistant professor of law at University of California Irvine School of Law.

Easy way out?

Some believe the Supreme Court might be able to find a way to defuse the issue that is tangled up in two slightly different injunctions that have been issued by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and by a district court judge under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In essence, the hustices would respond to the government's stay application by narrowing the scope of the injunctions, allowing some of the challenged provisions of the ban go into effect while upholding a block on the most contentious aspect: the section that actually suspends travel.

Harvard Law School Professor Mark Tushnet floated the idea, calling it an "easy out" for the court.

"The case will then almost certainly be moot by the time it's argued, and all that would be left would be to clean things up, presumably by directing that whatever injunctions are still in effect should be vacated," he posited on the Balkinization blog, which discusses legal matters.

The Kennedy factor

But what if the court does not take Tushnet's off ramp and eventually digs into the merits of the case? Kennedy could, as usual, be a critical vote.

Here's why:

Challengers say the order is motivated by religious animus in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The President's intent, they say, is evident from statements he made on the campaign trail referring to a so-called "Muslim Ban."
In its opinion that upheld a halt of the ban, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ringing endorsement of that argument.

In briefs filed with the Supreme Court, however, Wall insists that the courts were wrong to look at Trump's campaign statements.

Instead, he argues, they need to look only at the face of the order. In doing so, they will find the order is neutral with respect to religion and is necessary to support national security determinations.

"It is religion-neutral in operation," Wall wrote. "It draws distinctions among countries based on national-security risks identified by Congress and the Executive (Branch), not religion."

That's where Kennedy could come in play. Would he consider the campaign statements?

Challengers say he would, based upon a concurring opinion he wrote in 2015 in a case called Kerry v. Din.

"Justice Kennedy's separate opinion in that case raised the prospect that courts could look behind the neutral justifications offered by the government in immigration cases in which the plaintiffs claim that the relevant officials acted in bad faith," said CNN contributor Stephen I. Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law.

"Here, the question is whether Justice Kennedy would look at an array of statements by Candidate Trump, President Trump, and his advisers and surrogates as evidence that the travel ban was in fact motivated by inappropriate anti-Muslim bias," he said.

Not surprisingly, in blocking the order, the Fourth Circuit relied in large part on what Kennedy wrote in Din.

In its opinion, the majority of the Fourth Circuit said: "Kennedy explained that where a plaintiff makes 'an affirmative showing of bad faith' ... courts may 'look behind' the challenged action."

In his legal filings, Wall said the Court of Appeals got it wrong and rested on a "misreading of a statement in Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Din."

Wall said, in essence, that Kennedy was not endorsing a "wide-ranging search for pretext."

End of the term

The court is likely to act on the government's requests sometime in June during the final month of the current term. The travel ban has turned a sleepy term into a potential blockbuster.

As the justices race to finish opinions from this term, they are also considering hot button issues for the next term, including cases on the Second Amendment, religious liberty and even a follow-up to the same-sex marriage opinion from 2015.

Now, the travel ban is a part of that list.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/04/politi...supreme-court/

I don't think this is going to end well.

Just my opinion. And I truly hope I'm wrong. By the time the court decides anything, it probably won't matter anyway.

How can Ginsburg participate in Travel Order case after her *campaign* statements about Trump?

Donald Trump’s second Executive Order on visa entry from six majority Muslim countries is now before the Supreme Court.
Trump is seeking review of the 4th Circuit’s decision upholding a Maryland District Court injunction halting the Executive Order. In addition to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari asking SCOTUS to hear the case on the merits, Trump has a request for a stay of the lower court injunctions pending a decision on the merits. The application is on a fast track, with the Court setting June 12 as the deadline for opposition papers.
The 4th Circuit’s decision found that the Executive Order, though facially neutral, “in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” and that context was “a backdrop of public statements by the President and his advisors and representatives at different points in time, both before and after the election and President Trump’s assumption of office.”
Those statements, including by Trump himself, the 4th Circuit concluded:

… creates a compelling case that EO-2’s primary purpose is religious. Then-candidate Trump’s campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States….
As a candidate, Trump also suggested that he would attempt to circumvent scrutiny of the Muslim ban by formulating it in terms of nationality, rather than religion….
These statements, taken together, provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated both EO-1 and EO-2: President Trump’s desire to exclude Muslims from the United States. The statements also reveal President Trump’s intended means of effectuating the ban: by targeting majority-Muslim nations instead of Muslims explicitly….
EO-2 cannot be read in isolation from the statements of planning and purpose that accompanied it, particularly in light of the sheer number of statements, their nearly singular source, and the close connection they draw between the proposed Muslim ban and EO-2 itself.

The 4th Circuit decision has been widely criticized for its reliance on campaign statements, as well as for substituting judicial security evaluations for those of the executive branch.
This case, unlike other more mundane cases involving Trump policies that may come before the court, clearly places Donald Trump’s words, personality and credibility in issue.
One of the Justices already has expressed a view on Trump’s credibility. In July 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginbsburg was quoted in a CNN interview deriding Trump as “a faker”:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s well-known candor was on display in her chambers late Monday, when she declined to retreat from her earlier criticism of Donald Trump and even elaborated on it.

“He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.” ….

“At first I thought it was funny,” she said of Trump’s early candidacy. “To think that there’s a possibility that he could be president … ” Her voice trailed off gloomily.


“I think he has gotten so much free publicity,” she added, drawing a contrast between what she believes is tougher media treatment of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and returning to an overriding complaint: “Every other presidential candidate has turned over tax returns.”

That July 2016 CNN lashing of Trump was not a one-off. Justice Ginsburg made two other negative public statements about Trump during the campaign (via Politifact):

Interview July 7, 2016 with Associated Press
Asked what if Trump won the presidency, Ginsburg said: “I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”
Interview July 8, 2016 with New York Times
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.
Referring to something she thought her late husband, tax lawyer Martin Ginsburg, would have said, she said: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

Justice Ginsburg came under heavy criticism from a wide spectrum of commentators, since it is unusual for a Supreme Court Justice to express views on a political candidate and campaign. Even the Editorial Board of the NY Times agreed that Justice Ginsburg’s comments were inappropriate,Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling.
Three times in the past week, Justice Ginsburg has publicly discussed her view of the presidential race, in the sharpest terms….
There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.

In this election cycle in particular, the potential of a new president to affect the balance of the court has taken on great importance, with the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, other justices are nearing an age when retirement would not be surprising. That makes it vital that the court remain outside the presidential process. And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?

The Washington Post editorial board also was critical of Justice Ginsburg’s comments, Justice Ginsburg’s inappropriate comments on Donald Trump:

However valid her comments may have been, though, and however in keeping with her known political bent, they were still much, much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court. There’s a good reason the Code of Conduct for United States Judges flatly states that a “judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.” Politicization, real or perceived, undermines public faith in the impartiality of the courts. No doubt this restriction requires judges, and justices, to muzzle themselves and, to a certain extent, to pretend they either do or do not think various things that they obviously do or do not believe. As the saying goes, however, “hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.”

As journalists, we generally favor more openness and disclosure from public figures rather than less. Yet Justice Ginsburg’s off-the-cuff remarks about the campaign fall into that limited category of candor that we can’t admire, because it’s inconsistent with her function in our democratic system….

Justice Ginsburg didn’t quite apologize, but did say she regretted the comments:

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”
Later Thursday in an interview with NPR, Ginsburg described her remarks as “incautious.”
“I said something I should not have said,” she remarked. When NPR’s Nina Totenberg asked her “if she just goofed,” Ginsburg responded: “I would say yes to your question, and that’s why I gave the statement. I did something I should not have done. It’s over and done with and I don’t want to discuss it anymore.”

Justice Ginsburg’s negative comments about Trump, though less direct, continued after inauguration. On February 24, 2017, the Washington Post reported:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a noted critic of President Trump, suggested that she doesn’t believe the country is in good hands but said she is hopeful about the future.
“We’re not experiencing the best of times,” Ginsburg said Thursday on BBC’s “Newsnight,” though she did not comment directly about the president.

In a case in which Trump’s campaign comments are front and center, how can Ginsburg hear a case in which she has complained publicly about Trump and Trump’s campaign?
This is not a situation where a Justice merely is presumed to have political leanings (don’t they all?), or is affiliated with one political party more than another. Justice Ginsburg has publicly questioned Trump’s credibility, and that credibility is an issue in the case as it presents itself in the 4th Circuit decision from which review is sought.
Justice Ginsburg cannot be removed from the case. The judicial code cited by the Washington Post editorial doesn’t apply to Supreme Court Justices. She would have to recuse herself voluntarily.
I don’t expect Justice Ginsburg to recuse herself. But her *campaign* comments about Trump’s campaign look even worse in hindsight.

Article: http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06...s-about-trump/

People should petition for her recuse. How would it be if reversed party? All over the news, demands to recuse.

If you start one I'll sign it. A lot of people would probably sign it.