Appeals Court To Hear Immigration Ban Arguments On Tuesday Evening

Tyler Durden's picture

On Monday evening, a Federal Appeals Court announced that the legal showdown with the Trump Administration will take place on Tuesday evening around 6pm, when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments on whether to restore President Trump’s executive action on immigration and refugees. Oral arguments will be made by phone, with each side getting 30 minutes of argument time. A recording of the call will be made public after the hearing.

At around the same time, the Justice Department filed a brief with the Court of Appeals in support of President Donald Trump’s travel and refugee ban. The filing said the Trump administration executive order that bans travelers from seven nations is a “lawful exercise” of presidential authority. A federal judge in Washington state put the order on hold Friday.

“The court’s sweeping nationwide injunction is vastly overbroad,” the administration said of a Seattle judge’s ruling Friday that halted PresidentDonald Trump’s plan. After the filing, a three-judge panel of the appeals court scheduled a hearing by phone for Tuesday at 3 p.m. in San Francisco.

As Bloomberg recaps, since the Seattle judge’s ruling, refugees and travelers have been rushing to the U.S. before another legal turn closes the door. The 11 days since Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order have been chaotic as travelers were initially stranded at airports, protests raged worldwide and a litany of lawsuits were filed across the country. "Companies, universities, citizens and refugees have sought relief from the courts in crucial tests of the president’s unilateral ability to decide who threatens the nation."

The question before the federal appeals panel in San Francisco is narrow, springing from a case brought by Washington and Minnesota, which argued that the ban was unconstitutional and that their economies were being harmed. U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle temporarily halted Trump’s ban on Friday. The Justice Department seeks to void that order. The loser is likely to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Trump administration loses its appeal, the case will go back to the Seattle court, where Robart would weigh whether to reject the ban on a longer-term basis. The administration reiterated that Congress has granted the president “broad discretion to suspend the entry of any class of alien into the country.” It also argued that an alien outside the U.S. has no substantive right for a judicial review of a denial of a visa. Nor, do the states have a right to act on their behalf, government lawyers said.

The order doesn’t violate the Constitutional rights of lawful permanent residents, the government argued. The executive order is “neutral with respect to religion,” it said.

If the government fails to persuade the appeals court to block the order, it might petition the Supreme Court to intervene. Five of the eight justices would be needed to reverse that decision. However, Kathleen Kim, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles said “I think it’s unlikely this makes it to the Supreme Court,” adding  “I believe that if the Supreme Court wants to maintain its integrity as a majoritarian body serving as a legitimate system for checks and balances, it will not consider an appeal.”

That would leave the merits of the arguments to be debated in a Seattle courtroom, with the case and perhaps others making their way to the top court for review in months or even years - especially if appeals courts issue conflicting rulings on whether it’s legal. The immigration case has already cropped up in the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, with Democrats questioning whether he would be able to check Trump’s exercise of executive power. Gorsuch, a conservative who favors originalism when interpreting the Constitution, could be the tie-breaking vote on the currently split court.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
The Alarmist's picture

By that time, another 40k will have slipped through the borders ... if 1% are terrorists, then that means 400 more terrorists roam the US at will.  Good thing Homeland is on Grannies and Babies to make sure that number isn't bigger.

barndoor's picture

We need this ban to prevent another tragedy like Bowling Green...

The Alarmist's picture

There was a tragedy at Bowling Green?  Was that in the press?

Son of Loki's picture

By phone?


How about by mental telepathy!

xythras's picture
xythras (not verified) Son of Loki Feb 7, 2017 7:23 AM

That's old news, not so HOT as this: Twitter is ON FIRE today.

Thanks to Trump obviously.

Trump, Fake News, Bathrobes and Twitter


Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) xythras Feb 7, 2017 2:34 PM

And if you go now with signs in front of the appeals court in San Francisco asking to uphold the ban the leftists will beat you up in a mob.

Victory_Garden's picture

"Was that in the press?"


No dingle-dick, but this was:

 German Family Films Refugees Waging Tribal War At Kid's Park


They are in America NOW!!!


Oh and hey...who is that mysterious bunch that just moved in down the road from you?


Got Guns?



MarsInScorpio's picture

Referring back to the story about the California criminal Senate President Pro Tem, if ever there was a story that wraps the entire insanity of the Ultra-Liberal 5% Fringe Left-Wing Lunatics' attitude towards the Rule of Law, this article provides irrefutable proof that they are serial criminals, that they know they are serial criminals, that they intend to continue being serial criminals, and that the smear term "racist" is nothing but a means of shifting attention away from their criminally insane minds.

Note to those who don't get the culture angle to the immigration battle: This article proves that we are allowing people who know they are criminals to:

* Infect our country with twisted rationalizations that say, "It's OK if I feel like committing felony after felony - endlessly! - with no regard whatsoever to whom I hurt, and whatever damage I cause their life.

* It's OK because I get to do whatever I want to do, to whomever I want to do it to, and if you don't like it, I don't care - because I'm going to:

* Smear you as a "racist,"

* Beat you unconscious with my gangs, and maybe even murder you while the LEOs stand there doing nothing about it because they're terrified of us,

* Throw bricks through the windows and Molotov Cocktails to burn the building down right behind the bricks,

* Intimidate the LEOs,

* Get backed by the criminally corrupt politicians who will say and do anything to stay in office,

* Be turned into "poor, oppressed, victims" by the Malicious Sleazy Media (the true description for MSM),

* Shop for an irresponsible, dishonest, unethical federal judge named Robart who is known throughout the legal community for his civic work encouraging illegal immigration while presenting himself as being "arms-length" from the heart of the legal issue, so he can decide as one-person the law for the other 350-million living in America,

* And never, ever, get arrested, tried, or convicted - let alone jailed! - and destroy America in a heartbeat if you try and stop me.

* Oh yeah - and don't forget - I VOTE! - because if you dare question my vote, well, it's back to the "racist," "tin-foil hat," "right-wing Nazi," "hater" label for you. And the Malicious Sleazy Media will back me forever on it!

So my question, and it should be yours as well, is, "What's the address of every newspaper in LA, San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento? Because I'm going to write a Letter to the Editor, and then call the Executive Editor personally, and say, 'Why isn't this guy and the half of his family who admit committing these federal felonies in jail yet?'"

Then I'll send a copy of the letters to the president with a note telling him to "Never give up!," so he can stick thousands of letters from thousands of people into the face of the Malicious Sleazy Media and laugh at them.

And they wonder why they aren't welcome in America . . .

xythras's picture
xythras (not verified) MarsInScorpio Feb 7, 2017 7:23 AM


NobodyNowhere's picture

Will Robart be removed if found wrong?

vato poco's picture

it's the 9th circuit. everybody knows what they'll decide; they knew it before it happened

BarkingCat's picture

Not necessarily.  There are shocking instances of sane rulings by this court once in a while.


However Trump's team screwed up. A district court has no jurisdiction in a case involving a state.

The correct action for the DOJ was to simply inform that judge instead of showing up there as a defendant. 

They should have told him to read Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution.  

After that, if he still held the hearing (without federal government lawyers) and made this decision, I would have his ass arrested on charges of sedition. 



More Ammo's picture

Correct BCat


Sadly most judges don't understand the differnece between Lawful and Legal...


He has no Lawful position but hopes to create a "legal precedence"  


IE judges writing Unlawful laws...

goober's picture

9th circuit , about as much chance as a snowball in hell. Was this judge picked in the left coast district for a specific reason and outcome, or am I being conspiratorial ?

All part of the left NWO agenda and their true power is PRAVDA/MSM. It must be destroyed once and for all and it can be. 

the French bitch's picture

No, he won't but something just as bad will happen.  He will be judged by his peers as having made a judgment not in accord with the law, not good, like a doctor removing your left testical when it was your tonsils scheduled to be taken out.  He will lose respect, and be thought the fool for placing his political beliefs ahead of his professional duties.

azusgm's picture

Does this guy have enough honor to be bothered by the opinions of his peers?

IndyPat's picture

His peers are illegals.

the French bitch's picture

It isn't about his honor.  Judges care a great deal about having their decisions overturned by a higher court which in essence says: This judge is incompetent.  Not good for the resume, especially in this instance, where it's pretty obvious that he let his baser emotions get the better of him. This decision will follow him for the rest of his career.  To be sure, it won't make any difference in some circles.  But, once you've been labeled unethical that stain doesn't go away and closes a lot of doors

BarkingCat's picture

Seattle is full of fools.

His peers in that city will applaud him. They use twisted contorted logic on regular basis in that city.

Sir John Bagot Glubb's picture

Let's hope Trump & Co. has gotten the best lawyer in the Justice Department to argue it and not someone like that ass hole woman he had to fire.  

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

In hindsight, it's the Administration's own fault for making any kind of presumptions, when it comes to the Left's devious methods.

They should have front-ran it, by getting in front of a Judge with a known Conservative record on Immigration, and in a conservative Circuit. 

I hope that they've learned their lesson.

BarkingCat's picture

No they should have asked that judge if he has ever read the US Constitution and specifically if he is familiar with Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 2. Immediately followed by - "you have no jurisdiction" and walked out of the courtroom.


(I did not down vote you)

The Alarmist's picture

The ultimate irony is that states like Washington are falling back on the Tenth Amendment to push an agenda that ultimately leads to a further weakening of the Tenth Amendment, and the States themselves.

booboo's picture

I just cancelled a lumber package through 84 today, gotta cull out 50% of their stud material due to bows anyways.

Dilluminati's picture

I'm never buying from these clowns.




Coca Cola



Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) Dilluminati Feb 6, 2017 8:51 PM








Columbia Sportswear










TRM's picture

That's the way to do it. Vote with your dollars. It is the only real vote you have.

Insurrector's picture

The Coca Cola ad was recycled from two years ago.

Where were you loonies back then?


goober's picture

just curious, what does that have to do with 9th circuit ?

DeathMerchant's picture

They support illegal immigration for one thing.

ghengis86's picture

A stupid fucking super bowl commercial that ran yesterday. Following some beaners escapades in breaking laws heading for the US. Fucking stupid

alfbell's picture

It's Team Trump vs. The Establishment. The Establishment has gotten deeply entrenched over the last 50 years. They own, control and manipulate everything. It is going to be a tough and long haul to clear out this den of vipers and get America back on track.

Team Trump will figure it out, persevere and overcome.


vato poco's picture



ask Jeb. ask the RNC. ask Hillary. ask the #Pizzagate scum when Trump and Sessions drop the hammer on em.

vato poco's picture

somebody downvoted hammering #Pizzagate scum? that's interesting...

UnschooledAustrianEconomist's picture

One serial down voter around. But who gives shit anyway.

the French bitch's picture

I've noticed that someone seems to be going along downvoting whatever, in no particular pattern 

Insurrector's picture

Yes, the echo chamber has been invaded by self thinkers who aren't yet drunk on the Kool Aid festering in here.

Dilluminati's picture

I'm hoping this time not to be able to say I told you so when it is documented that determined terrorists entered during the window of halting this travel suspension.  It is not a ban, it is a suspension until those nations meet Interpol and DHS requirements for travel and their airport security is improved (all part of vetting) so that an airliner doesn't go down like what happened over Egypt.

get it right and stop pretending that corporate profits are more important than human life.


The Alarmist's picture

The only criticism I have is that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were not on the list.

HRH Feant's picture
HRH Feant (not verified) The Alarmist Feb 6, 2017 7:06 PM

Same here. They should be added.

Max Cynical's picture

I think Trump is using this as a chip to negotate the use of their 100K air conditioned tents outside Mecca.

azusgm's picture

KSA at least should take in their Sunni brethern. Take the ones from Gaza too.

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) The Alarmist Feb 6, 2017 8:54 PM

Trump said these countries are vetting their people. Those on the ban can't, they are failed states.

IndyPat's picture

Add Israel and...fucking England, I guess.

Insurrector's picture

You forget the UAE.  Prince Alwaleed bin Tala is the billionaire who aided Trump during his corporate bankruptcies in the 1990s by purchasing his yacht, which provided him with desperately needed cash.  As with most of his 'partners' Trump has gone hot and cold on that relationship, but he has several projects/business interests in the UAE still.

Damn that pesky Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965.  Can't set quotas based on national origin.  Should this go to the Supreme Court, my bet is that will doom Trump's botched EO.  When you swing for the fences, gotta have a good grip.  Maybe he ain't ready for the big league.

chubbar's picture

IF the president doesn't have the authority to control immigration and foreigners have a right to enter our country without control, this country is completely fucked. I'd be surprised to find out that the president can't do this.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

They simply need to write a new one. This time...

- To include Afghanistan and Russia. (Note that Russia is not a "predominantly Muslim" country, but they got them too). Russia is there as a decoy, because it will be worded so that visas can be issued on a fiat basis.

- Wording is critical.  Word it so, that the visas may be issued to people from these countries, depending on the circumstances and judgement of the State Dept.  With a focus on US interests and security. That way, they can keep out all those Muzzies ("potentially radical Muslims, their agents, surrogates and helpers").

- Have a surrogate file a lawsuit in a Conservative Circuit, and get it in front of an Immigration Judge with a proven record.  Thus ensuring its outcome.  No more "playing nice".

IndyPat's picture

Just say ALL IMMIGRATION. Period.

For 4 years. Maybe 8.

No racial or religious angle. Just a big, Fuck Off, we're busy. Come back later.

BarkingCat's picture

No more playing nice would be to tell all district and appellate courts to get bent as they do not have jurisdiction. Then arresting any judge that proceeds with a hearing.

US Constitution Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 2 is very clear. Only the supreme Court has jurisdiction.