The White House says it expects the courts to restore President Donald Trump’s temporary ban on Syrian refugees and 90-day suspended visa status for travelers from seven countries, via an executive order founded on a claim of national security.
Despite the initial 9th circuit denial of the Trump administration’s request to immediately set aside a Seattle judge’s ruling that put a hold on the executive order nationwide, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (the most liberal and overturned appellate court in the nation) requested legal briefs from both sides by 6:00 pm EST today / 3:00 pm PST.
(Via AP) [4:30am EST] Lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota have told a federal appellate court it would “unleash chaos again” if it lifted an order temporarily halting President Donald Trump’s ban on refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.
In briefs filed early Monday morning with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington state and Minnesota said Trump’s travel ban harmed residents, businesses and universities and was unconstitutional.
[…] Dozens of tech companies, including giants like Apple, Google, and Uber, are siding with Washington state as it fights President Donald Trump’s ban on refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.
The companies filed briefs late Sunday with a federal appellate court saying the Trump executive order hurts their businesses by making it harder to recruit employees. The companies also said the travel ban would prompt businesses to build operations outside the United States (read more)
According to the Washington Times, Byron York, the White House has already filed the appellate brief sometime on Sunday.
Byron York […] Now the government has answered [Judge] 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. (read more)
[…] Despite the overwhelming strength of the administration’s argument, what happens next — as the case is argued in a liberal circuit and then possibly moves on to a Supreme Court divided evenly, 4 to 4, among liberal and conservative justices — is impossible to predict. But strength of the case does not assure victory. As Laura Ingraham, the conservative radio host who also served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, tweeted on Sunday: “The law is on Donald Trump‘s side. Doesn’t mean that the courts will follow it.” (more)