ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

9th Cir. Dissent Rebukes Trump For Attacking Judiciary, While Supporting Trump's Power Over Immigration. Trump Attacks Court Again. Roger Algase

Rate this Entry
Update: March 18, 12:20 pm

POLITICO reports on March 17 that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges are escalating their attacks on each other in additional opinions written after the five-judge dissent authored by Judge Jay Bybee, discussed below in my expanded version of my original comment first posted on March 17.

I will have more to say about Judge Bybee's dissent and the fierce reaction to it on both sides in an upcoming comment ilw.com comment.

For the POLITICO story, see:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...vel-ban-236211

The expanded version of my original comment appears below.

In what could could be one of the most extraordinary judicial opinions ever written in the history of US immigration law, 9th Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, joined by four other of that court's judges, issued a dissenting opinion which sharply criticized Donald Trump personal attacks on the judges of the court, even while supporting Trump's claim of almost unlimited presidential power to ban immigrants from entering the United States.

For a summary of Judge Bybee's dissent an a link to the full opinion in the American Bar Journal, see:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...dges_criticize

In a lengthy opinion which relied heavily on the alleged limits on judicial power to interfere with "good faith" decisions of the executive branch to exclude non-US citizens from entering the US (citing Kleindienst v. Mandel, S. Ct. 1972, but said nothing about the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to free exercise of religion and equal protection of the law, Judge Bybee wrote in his dissent that:

"We are judges, not Platonic guardians. It is our duty to say what the law is, and the meta-source of our law, the U.S. Constitution, commits the power to make foreign policy, including the decision to permit or forbid entry into the United States, to the President and Congress."

Without going into the origin of the Supreme Court's doctrine of "Plenary Power" being vested in Congress and the executive over immigration, dating from the dark days of the Chinese exclusion laws, it is enough to point out that Trump's Muslim ban orders did not even meet the very basic Kleindienst v. Mandel test, cited by Judge Bybee, of being facially legitimate and in good faith.

However, after making clear in his opinion that he (and the other four judges who joined in the dissent) supported Trump's view that the courts have little or no business questioning his power to bar any foreign citizen or citizens he chooses from entering the US for almost any reason he chooses, Bybee, one of America's most conservative judges, who achieved notoriety as the author of the G.W. Bush administration's "Torture Memos", wrote a denunciation of Trump's authoritarian attempts to intimidate the judiciary which, one can safely predict, will be quoted more many years or even centuries to come, for as long as America continues to remain a democracy:

"Even as i dissent from our decision not to vacate the panel's flawed opinion, I have the greatest respect for my colleagues. The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues were all out of bounds of civic and persuasive discourse - particularly when they came from the parties [i.e. Donald Trump]. It does no credit to the arguments of the parties to impugn the motives or the competence of the members of this court; ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for effective advocacy."

Judge Bybee's stinging rebuke of Trump's personal attacks on judges who do not agree with him concluded:

"Such personal attacks treat the court as though it were merely a political forum in which bargaining, compromise, and even intimidation are acceptable principles. The courts of law must be more than that, or we are not governed by law at all."


As if to lend credibility to Judge Bybee's unprecedented rebuke of a sitting president for undermining the rule of law in America, even while agreeing with Trump's position on the case at hand, Trump responded with another, ominous attack against the court's majority judges who supported a more limited view of presidential power, accusing the 9th Circuit as follows:

"That circuit is in chaos and that circuit is frankly in turmoil."


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2999546

Trump's latest attack follows a threat in February by Republican Senators to break up the 9th Circuit in response to its original decision blocking Trump's seven country Muslim entry ban.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-momentum.html

What does this say about the chances for survival of democracy and the rule of law in America while Donald Trump is president?

As I predicted in an earlier Immigration Daily comment, both Trump's claim of unlimited presidential power over immigration and his personal attacks against judges who disagree with him put the foundations of America's democracy at risk.

http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?9448-...t-Roger-Algase

The issue raised by Trump's attempt to ban more than 100 million Muslims in six, formerly seven, countries from entering the United States has now escalated from an assault on a particular religion to an attack on the Constitution's separation of powers and judicial independence itself.
________________________________
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards.

Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com


Submit "9th Cir. Dissent Rebukes Trump For Attacking Judiciary, While Supporting Trump's Power Over Immigration. Trump Attacks Court Again. Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "9th Cir. Dissent Rebukes Trump For Attacking Judiciary, While Supporting Trump's Power Over Immigration. Trump Attacks Court Again. Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "9th Cir. Dissent Rebukes Trump For Attacking Judiciary, While Supporting Trump's Power Over Immigration. Trump Attacks Court Again. Roger Algase" to Google Submit "9th Cir. Dissent Rebukes Trump For Attacking Judiciary, While Supporting Trump's Power Over Immigration. Trump Attacks Court Again. Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "9th Cir. Dissent Rebukes Trump For Attacking Judiciary, While Supporting Trump's Power Over Immigration. Trump Attacks Court Again. Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "9th Cir. Dissent Rebukes Trump For Attacking Judiciary, While Supporting Trump's Power Over Immigration. Trump Attacks Court Again. Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "9th Cir. Dissent Rebukes Trump For Attacking Judiciary, While Supporting Trump's Power Over Immigration. Trump Attacks Court Again. Roger Algase" to del.icio.us

Updated 03-18-2017 at 01:29 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    And what does it say about the correctness of the decisions that have held that Trump's Travel Ban violates the constitution? You brush that aside to focus on criticism of Trump.

    "Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order, the President’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency, and “[t]he wisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for our consideration.”

    He says in a footnote on the first page of his dissent, "I have written this dissent to defend an important constitutional principle—that the political branches, informed by foreign affairs and national security considerations, control immigration subject to limited judicial review."

    Nolan Rappaport
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The point here is obvious. Even the judges who agree with Trump on the law cannot stand his bullying tactics and his assault on the independence of the judiciary.

    If this ringing condemnation of Trump's authoritarian assault on judges who disagree with him on the law had come from judges who are opposed to his legal views in the issue before the court, it might b easier to dismiss this opinion as just polemics from his opponents.

    But these five judges are not his opponents. On the issue before the court, they are on his side.

    But even judges who agree with him on the law are warning about the dangers to our democracy in his personal attacks on judges who disagree with him.

    The five judges are, in effect, telling us that Trump is behaving like a dictator who happens to be right in a particular case (in their view), but who is still acting like a dictator.

    In more than a half century of reading judicial decisions, I have never seen one like this.

    We are living in uncertain and dangerous times, as far as our democracy is concerned.

    That is the message coming from the five dissenting judges of the 9th Circuit.

    And how did Trump answer the 9th Circuit's decision? According to the news item quoted above, it was with another personal attack on the members of that court.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 03-17-2017 at 08:36 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With regard to the merits of the five Circuit Courts Judges' dissent, holding that the president has wide power over the entry of foreign citizens which the courts should not interfere with, I will respond more fully in a forthcoming comment.

    For now, it is enough to say that the 9th Circuit majority, which refused to vacate its decision blocking Trump's original seven Muslim country ban, was acting, not as "Platonic guardians" in the words of the dissent, but as guardians of the Constitution of the United States, which protects the freedom of religion of all Americans.

    This includes the freedom of 3 or 4 million Muslim Americans to practice their religion free from fear, hatred, suspicion and persecution.

    I do not see anything in the dissent which addresses that crucial issue in this case.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 03-17-2017 at 09:52 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    No, Roger, they defied the constitution. Read Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972).
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../753/case.html

    Nolan Rappaport
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I have written extensively about Mandel. See my ilw.com blog on December 29, 2016, in which I also refer to a letter by 42 Constitutional Law professors on this issue. Nolan might well want to devote some further study to Mandel.

    In the 2015 Supreme Court case of Kerry v. Din, the Court held that a decision by the executive to deny a visa had to be in good faith in order to be beyond judicial review. There is not a single iota of good faith in Trump's Muslim bans.

    Everything in the history of the bans, both before and after Trump took office as president shows that the purpose was religious discrimination in violation of the First Amendment rights of US citizens, not just immigrants seeking to enter the US.

    See my ilw.com comment of March 19, 2017.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: