Another Saturday night upheaval
On another day of chaotic developments over the week-old order, the State Department reversed its cancellation of visas for people from the seven affected countries and restarted efforts to admit refugees. Aid groups scrambled to take advantage of what they acknowledged might be a brief opportunity for refugees to enter the United States, and small numbers of travelers from the previously banned countries began their journeys, knowing that the judge’s ruling could be reversed at any time.
The developments led Mr. Trump to lash out throughout the day on Saturday, prompting criticism that he failed to respect the judicial branch and its power to exert a check on his authority.
He certainly does – and he very publicly and noisily fails to respect it.
Late Saturday, the Justice Department filed papers notifying the District Court that it would seek to have the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit block the lower court’s action. The White House had said earlier that it would direct the Justice Department to file for an emergency stay of the ruling, by Judge James Robart of Federal District Court in Seattle, that would allow continued enforcement of the president’s order.
Judge Robart, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, declared in his ruling that “there’s no support” for the administration’s argument that “we have to protect the U.S. from individuals” from the affected countries — Iran, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Libya.
I think we’re supposed to just take Trump’s word for it.
In his first statement on the matter on Friday evening, the press secretary, Sean Spicer, described the judge’s action as “outrageous.” Minutes later, the White House issued a new statement deleting the word outrageous.
Mr. Trump’s Twitter post showed no such restraint. It recalled the attacks he made during the presidential campaign on a federal district judge in California who was presiding over a class-action lawsuit involving Trump University.
Democrats said the president’s criticism of Judge Robart was a dangerous development. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Mr. Trump seemed “intent on precipitating a constitutional crisis.” Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, whose state filed the suit that led to the injunction, said the attack was “beneath the dignity” of the presidency and could “lead America to calamity.”
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said in a statement that Mr. Trump’s outburst could weigh on the confirmation process for Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, the president’s nominee for the Supreme Court.
He’s like the crazy relative locked up in the root cellar.
Until now, Mr. Trump had been comparatively restrained about the multiple federal judges who have ruled against parts of his immigration order, even as he staunchly defended its legality. Some analysts had speculated that he did not want a repeat of the storm during the campaign when he accused Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of having a conflict of interest in the Trump University case because the judge’s family was of Mexican heritage. Mr. Trump, who had painted Mexicans as rapists and criminals, settled that case after the election.
But on Saturday, Mr. Trump let loose, and in the afternoon he unleashed another volley of attacks on the ruling. In one Twitter message, he questioned why a judge could “halt a Homeland Security travel ban,” which would allow “anyone, even with bad intentions,” to enter the country. An hour later, he complained about the “terrible decision,” saying it would let “many very bad and dangerous people” pour into the country.
Earlier, Mr. Trump had asserted, without evidence, that some Middle Eastern countries supported the immigration order. “Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries agree with the ban,” he wrote. “They know that if certain people are allowed in it’s death & destruction!”
Crash crash crash! – as he knocks all the jars of pickles to the floor.
The video of the oral argument in front of Judge Robart is posted here.
I don’t know how interesting anyone is likely to find it. There’s not a lot of fireworks. The DoJ attorney defending the executive order does a professional job of it, no silly Trumpian rhetoric. There’s a lot of discussion about standing, and I know how much you all love that!
I’ll note the highlights as I saw them:
At 9 minutes 30 seconds, the judge asks the attorney for the states whether it’s fair to consider campaign rhetoric in evaluating the order; I think counsel handled that pretty well.
31:00 the judge asks the Department of Justice attorney whether the federal government acknowledges ANY limit on the president’s authority in this context. Much tapdancing follows.
At around 35:30 I enjoyed the judge’s incredulous expression at the feds’ claim that there is no religious discrimination or favoritism behind this order.
39:00-41:00 the judge notes that there have been no arrests of any individuals from those seven countries for acts of terrorism. Counsel from the DoJ basically says well, you’re not allowed to second-guess the president.
55:00 – is the court’s oral ruling.
Thanks for saving me an hour, SM! Might tune in later, if there’s nothing better on tv. Which is likely ;)
The 9th Circuit has set up a dedicated page for documents from this case. As of this morning, it’s been updated to include the federal government’s motion for an emergency stay of Judge Robart’s order, and the 9th Circuit’s order denying it and setting a briefing schedule.
The 9th Circuit order is just a one-pager, there’s nothing really to be gleaned from it.