A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the suspension of President Trump’s controversial immigration order Thursday — a decision that could end up in front of the Supreme Court.
The panel of three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the order after a federal judge had issued a halt to the order last week.
Trump issued the executive order, which placed a 90-day pause on immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Sudan, on Jan. 27, causing chaos and outrage at airports across the country. The order also imposed a 120-day pause on all refugees, and an indefinite pause on refugees from Syria.
The case was given to the appeals court after a Seattle federal judge last week ordered a halt to Trump’s order. Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order after Washington state and Minnesota both sued. Attorneys from the Justice Department appealed Robart’s ruling, arguing that the president’s executive power gives him the authority to place restrictions on people coming into the country.
My initial reaction is surprise. I thought the court order that suspended the executive order was shoddy. I expected it to be quickly reversed.
Frankly, I wonder if the court didn’t feel like the POTUS backed the judicial branch into a corner. His heavy handed comments probably felt like a threat to judicial independence and, if so, perhaps this is a means of telling the world that they cannot be cowed. It wouldn’t be the first time a federal court ruled for the benefit of the court. Marbury v. Madison was all about that sort of thing.
So here is a little coaching for Team Trump. If you want a judge or panel of judges to rule in your favor, try to say things that make it easier – not harder – to do that.
You might not want to stand in from of the fusilade of tweets that is about to be fired.