BREAKING : Justice Dept. DESTROYS Case Against Trump’s Travel Ban
Washington State U.S. District judge James Robart did not offer a lot of detail when it came to his decision to stop President Trump’s executive order that temporarily halts immigration from 7 “terror hotbed” countries.
Instead of facts, Robart declared his belief that Washington State feels the order is “unconstitutional.”
Now, the Justice Department is challenging and shredding his decision.
From Washington Examiner
James Robart, the U.S. district judge in Washington State, offered little explanation for his decision to stop President Trump‘s executive order temporarily suspending non-American entry from seven terror-plagued countries. Robart simply declared his belief that Washington State, which in its lawsuit against Trump argued that the order is both illegal and unconstitutional, would likely win the case when it is tried.
Now the government has answered Robart, and unlike the judge, Justice Department lawyers have produced a point-by-point demolition of Washington State’s claims. Indeed, for all except the most partisan, it is likely impossible to read the Washington State lawsuit, plus Robart’s brief comments and writing on the matter, plus the Justice Department’s response, and not come away with the conclusion that the Trump order is on sound legal and constitutional ground.
Beginning with the big picture, the Justice Department argued that Robart’s restraining order violates the separation of powers, encroaches on the president’s constitutional and legal authority in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and immigration, and “second-guesses the president’s national security judgment” about risks faced by the United States.
Indeed, in court last week, Robart suggested that he, Robart, knows as much, or perhaps more, than the president about the current state of the terrorist threat in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and other violence-plagued countries. In an exchange with Justice Department lawyer Michelle Bennett, Robart asked, “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?”
“Your Honor, I don’t have that information,” said Bennett.
“Let me tell you,” said Robart. “The answer to that is none, as best I can tell. So, I mean, you’re here arguing on behalf of someone [President Trump] that says: We have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”
Perhaps Robart has been briefed by the intelligence community on conditions in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and the rest. Perhaps Robart has received the President’s Daily Brief. Perhaps not. In any event, the Justice Department argued — reasonably but not successfully — that it is the president, and not a U.S. District Court judge in the Western District of Washington State, who has the knowledge and the authority to make such decisions.
“Your Honor, I think the point is that because this is a question of foreign affairs, because this is an area where Congress has delegated authority to the president to make these determinations, it’s the president that gets to make the determinations,” Bennett said. “And the court doesn’t have authority to look behind those determinations.”
Robart rejected that position outright. Later, in its emergency brief filed Saturday night with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the government argued that a U.S. District Court judge has no legal right to stop a presidential action in which the president exercised his own constitutional power to conduct foreign policy, as well as power delegated by him to Congress in the area of immigration. The political branches of government have plenary authority over those areas, the government argued, citing cases from 1950, 1952, and 1999:
Judicial second-guessing of the president’s determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches’ plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration. See, e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-89 (1952) (“[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government.”). “[I]t is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.” Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543; see also INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999).
In addition, the government argued, “courts are particularly ill-equipped to second-guess the president’s prospective judgment about future risks.” The reason: “Unlike the president, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process.”
Read more here.
Amy Moreno is a Published Author, Pug Lover & Game of Thrones Nerd. You can follow her on Twitter here and Facebook here.
Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.
Seems odd to qualify “foreign nationals” when the issue is refugees, including those that have been converted to US nationals. So the “0” reference is misleading. For example:
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/judge-seals-file-in-somali-muslim-suspects-murder-trial/
https://youtu.be/XWI2jvB2u98
I can see the Constitutional President Trump cleaning/draining/correcting all these courts corrupted by demon-crates past several decades of corrupting our legal systems.
As immigration is no contitutional right, Trump cannot have decided against constitution.
To me it seems that another left tries to damage USA-gvmt. Simple, but maybe not simple enough for a US district judge ?
William Mount seems to have some info on this judge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5ZSqOg5Oeg&t=2s
Access to sensitive nstional security intelligence is reserved to certian branches of administration
This is what happens to those who judge by their personal FEELINGS instead of judging by the rule of law.
they put the hold country in damage one he is not the president he no not one thing what going on in the white house that is to high of a power to have over the white house it not good for our country this law need to be remove at once for the safe of our people and country
Trump needs to use the military to take these traitors into custody including anyone who tries to help them
The Dark Money & shady money from the likes of like Soros and Sons Company or his shady NGO’s Funding Democratic, Communist & Activist Immigration Lawyers, The Activist Judges that get Soros Donations to Demagogue the Constitution and Group poseing as Non profits or Foundations that get paid money for Human Trafficking need to Stop.. The Security risk needs to Stop. The Constitution was to protect American Citizens Not Refugees of a different National Origin. There is a Lot of Human Trafficking issues upon the Immigration, Refuge and Visa system.
There is even stories from people in Heavy Democratic populated areas of Virginia, San Francisco, LA of Human Trafficking issues involved in the Immigration and Family court system
Is anyone concerned about the language of Trump’s public reaction to this Federal Judge’s ruling? Does anyone find it concerning for Trump to direct tweet the phrase “so-called judge” and the word “ridiculous”?
Because this man is not a so-called judge. He’s a federal circuit judge. Nothing so-called. It strikes me as a very odd way to speak about a representative of our federal judicial system, appointed by President Bush, confirmed by the full Senate.
And while it is being argued whether this ban will be deemed too immediately detrimental to allow it to go forward, it’s hard to say it’s a ridiculous position when it will almost certainly not be decided without the Supreme Court weighing in. Issues which reach and are accepted to be heard by the SC are anything but ridiculous. They are contested and critical interpretations of our constitution which are so difficult to make a clear and easy decision about that the highest court in the land agrees to hear and rule on them.
I DON’T FIND IT CONCERNING AT ALL. FINALLY, A PRESIDENT THAT COMES FROM A LEADERSHIP POSITION AND DIRECTLY ADDRESSES PEOPLE AND ISSUES INSTEAD OF BEATING AROUND THE BUSH. VERY REFRESHING. “SO-CALLED JUDGE” IS PERFECT BECAUSE HE USED PERSONAL FEELING INSTEAD OF LAW. “RIDICULOUS” BECAUSE THE JUDGES ACTIONS RESULT IN A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY SINCE THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR IN THE PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY, THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED EITHER. ALSO RIDICULOUS BECAUSE THE KEY OBJECTIVE IS SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE AND WHY WOULD A JUDGE JEOPARDIZE THAT?
THE PRESIDENT, DEEMING THAT A MORE ACCURATE VETTING PROCESS NEEDS TO BE INSTALLED, HAS LAW AND PRECEDENT TO LEAN ON.
FINALLY, IF YOU CARRY THE FLAG IN THIS INSTANCE, I AM SURE YOU ARE ALSO WRITING HEAVILY ON HOW INAPPROPRIATE IT IS FOR POLITICIANS AND CITIZENS TO MAKE FALSE UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND CABINET APPOINTEES AS WELL AS THE ASSASSINATION THREATS ETC.