Live Blog: Justice Department as OxymoronPosted: February 7, 2017
I’m going to be listening into the Oral arguments made by the Justice (sic) Department appealing the stay on the Immigration Ban. Right now, Federal judges are hearing arguments about restoring Trump’s immigration and refugee executive order. Twenty-six Judges have now called the Ban unconstitutional.
We have the live audio stream here. There are other places to listen also.
A panel of three randomly selected federal judges will hear arguments from lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota and the Department of Justice. The arguments will be heard over telephone, so the livestream is audio-only. Each side will have 30 minutes to make its case.
This case will undoubtedly land on the desk of SCOTUS and this is the first step.
The judges are expected to then rule on the future of the executive order, although the ruling was not expected tonight. While their decision won’t determine the constitutionality of Trump’s immigration ban, it will determine whether a restraining order against Trump’s action, put in place by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart, will remain.
The two states have argued that Trump’s order was likely to cause “irreparable harm” to businesses, schools, family relations and state residents’ freedom to travel and is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of religion. The Justice Department said the travel restrictions are a matter of national security and the administration was excluding people from countries with ties to terrorism, not people of a certain religion.
Today, Trump suggested that the legal battle between the two states and the Justice Department could make it all the way to the Supreme Court.
“We’re going to take it through the system,” said Trump. “It’s very important for the country, regardless of me or whoever succeeds at a later date.”
On Capitol Hill today, Secretary of >Homeland Security John Kelly defended the immigration executive order, calling it “lawful and constitutional.”
Only a week old, the order has sparked protests and outcry across the country. The legal community has been grappling with the order, some travelers have been delayed, and others are wondering if they will be allowed previously approved entry into the United States.
Currently, the Judge is asking if there’s any evidence that the seven countries on the list posed the greatest risk of threat or history of threat. So far, the judges are skeptical about the proof or rationale. Clifton and Friedland have asked questions so far in the first 1/2 hour of the case provided by the Department of Justice (sic). Right now they’re asking for the number of Federal Offenses committed by people coming in from these countries.
Judges William Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee, Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, and Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee, will hear the government’s stay motion and are expected to render a decision by the end of the week.
Canby and Friedland joined to initially deny the government’s request for an immediate stay of the lower court ruling by Judge James Robart, who issued a nationwide hold on President Trump’s travel moratorium. Robart was an appointee of President George W. Bush and ruled in favor of the state of Washington’s challenge to the executive order, which was joined by Minnesota.
The states filed a brief early Monday challenging the ban, and the three-judge panel asked the federal government to reply by 3 p.m. Monday.
A ruling could come any time after that, although likely within a week, experts told the Los Angeles Times.
Of the three judges, Clifton is considered moderately conservative, while the two Democrat-appointed judges are seen as moderately liberal. The 9th Circuit is known as the most liberal federal appeals court, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Clifton, 66, received headlines a decade ago when he was a judge on the panel that upheld the imprisonment of journalist Josh Wolf. In 2006, Wolf refused to turn over videotapes of San Francisco demonstrations.
Friedland, 46, was born in Berkeley and graduated from Stanford as an undergraduate and from its law school. Before becoming a judge, she represented numerous corporate clients, as well as the University of California in constitutional cases. She lives in Mountain View.
Canby Jr., 85, is known as an expert in American Indian law. He garnered headlines in 2001 when he wrote the unanimous decision requiring the Professional Golfers Association to allow disabled golfer Casey Martin the right to use a golf cart when competing, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act. It was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
It’s just an hour so join us!!!