Judge Jay Bybee – immigrationcourtside.com

TAL @ SF CHRON: 9TH CIR. STICKS A FORK IN CORE OF “GONZO APOCALYPTO” SESSIONS’S CHILD ABUSE PROGRAM — Many Of DOJ’s Wasteful “Criminal” Prosecutions Of Harmless Asylum Seekers Were Illegal — Conservative Icon Judge Jay Bybee Becoming A Key Judicial Voice For The Rule Of Law Against Trump & Co’s Executive Abuses!

Tal Kopan
Washington Reporter, SF Chronicle

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Ninth-Circuit-ruling-could-wipe-out-hundreds-of-14152171.php

Ninth Circuit ruling could wipe out hundreds of family separations convictions

By Tal Kopan

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court in California substantially narrowed the government’s ability to charge people for crossing the border illegally — a case that could invalidate hundreds of prosecutions that were at the core of the Trump administration’s separations of migrant families last year.

The ruling comes as the federal law in the case, which makes it a crime to cross the border without authorization, is under scrutiny in the Democratic presidential campaign, with several candidates arguing it should be done away with altogether.

Wednesday’s ruling by a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena could bolster the Democrats’ argument that the Trump administration is misusing the law to criminalize well-intentioned immigrants seeking asylum. It also adds further questions to the administration’s widely criticized prosecutions that resulted in thousands of family separations last year.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.

The 2-1 decision overturning a lower court ruling concerned the provision of U.S. law that makes improper entry to the country a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. The law has three parts: entering the U.S. at an improper time or place, eluding immigration officers or entering the U.S. using false pretenses.

In an opinion written by Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush-appointee, the court decided that the second part — eluding officers — could only apply to immigrants who are at a valid border crossing but who try to enter by evading detection, not immigrants picked up on the U.S. side having crossed somewhere else. That was the case with Oracio Corrales-Vazquez, a Mexican national whom officers found hiding in bushes miles from the border, whose conviction the court overturned.

Because part one of the statute already covers immigrants who surreptitiously enter where there is no legal crossing, the court held, the second part must exist to cover some separate activity. Otherwise, the court said, it would be redundant.

Circuit has already held that part one of the illegal-entry crime — entering at an improper time or place — does not apply to people who cross the border where officials can see them, in person or over cameras, and then seek out an officer and claim asylum. Those migrants are clearly not trying to avoid detection, court rulings have held.

It has become standard practice for federal authorities in Southern California to charge border crossers only using part two to avoid the defense to part one, said Kara Hartzler, an attorney with the nonprofit San Diego Federal Defenders who brought the case. Now, federal attorneys will not have part two as a back door to charge asylum seekers with illegal entry.

The court ruling means thousands of similar convictions could be thrown out, including hundreds that were the basis for family separations the Trump administration carried out last summer in the name of prosecuting a crime.

“All of the criminal cases that led to being separated from their families, … at least in San Diego, are at least convictions where the person was actually innocent because of this ruling,” Hartzler said.

David Leopold, a former president and general counsel of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, recalled then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen telling Congress the family separations were justified because the adults taken into custody had been charged with illegal-entry crimes.

“Well, here they weren’t even prosecuting those cases correctly,” Leopold said. “It puts a question mark next to every one of those convictions, which led to separation of children and in some cases the permanent separation of child from parent.”

The Trump administration separated thousands of families in the two months the program was in effect, before the president stopped it and a federal judge in San Diego ruled the practice was unconstitutional. In hundreds of those cases, parents were deported without their children, many of whom will not be reunited as the youths pursue a right to stay in the U.S.

The Justice Department does not make prosecution data public that would identify how many separated families could be affected by Wednesday’s ruling, but there could be hundreds of such cases. Nearly 4,000 immigration-related offenses were brought in the Southern District of California in 2018, according to court data, of which the most common charge is illegal entry.

The ruling also comes as some Democrats are attacking the notion that crossing the border should be a criminal rather than civil offense. Former Housing Secretary Julián Castro has made repealing the law a central focus of his presidential campaign, pointing to the Trump administration’s use of the law as a justification for separating the families last year. Twelve Democratic candidates have embraced the idea, according to a Politico tracker.

Castro and other critics of the law say it criminalizes asylum seeking. Other parts of the law make clear that an immigrant can file an asylum claim regardless of whether they entered the country legally.

Bill Hing, professor of law and migration studies at University of San Francisco, supports Castro’s arguments to remove the criminal part of the law, saying deportation is “already a pretty severe penalty” for anyone found not to have a valid asylum claim.

“Especially now, the vast majority of people gathered at the border are coming to seek protection — why criminalize that activity?” Hing said. “The statute should require something much more criminal in intent, and when it’s just simply to cross the border to seek protection, I think there’s a good argument that we should decriminalize that activity.”

The ruling applies only to the nine states covered by the Ninth Circuit, including California and Arizona along the Mexican border. But Hing says lawyers could seek similar rulings in other border states.

“Conceptually it actually makes sense,” Hing said. “It doesn’t make sense to have two parts of a law where the same act could qualify for the violation of both.”

*******************************************

Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Jay Bybee has been a controversial figure. His confirmation was strongly opposed by many Human Rights and Civil Rights groups because of his role in justifying torture while serving in the Bush DOJ.

Nevertheless, in this case, and in the earlier case of East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, blocking an illegal attempt by Trump to bar Central American asylum seekers, Judge Bybee has been a strong and courageous voice for the rule of law, reason, and Constitutional separation of powers in the face of Trump’s intentional overreach in the area of immigration. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2018/12/10/mark-joseph-stern-slate-on-why-judge-bybees-65-page-evisceration-of-trumps-lawless-asylum-order-is-so-important-the-next-time-trump-floats-a-flagrantly-lawless-idea-then/.

Indeed, many observers believe that Judge Bybee’s scholarly opinion in East Bay Sanctuary was key to Chief Justice Roberts voting with the Supremes’ so-called “liberal wing” to reject the Administration’s bogus attempt to “end run” the system in that case by going directly to the Supremes without allowing the lower court proceedings to be completed. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2018/12/21/i-was-right-barely-chief-justice-roberts-saves-asylum-rule-of-law-administrations-request-to-implement-order-truncating-asylum-law-turned-down-5-4/.

Unfortunately, this much needed decision comes too late for many families who have been irreparably damaged by “Gonzo Apolcalypto’s” vile illegal and immoral abuse of Government prosecutorial authority. It’s too bad that there does not appear to be any way of holding “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions personally liable for his abuse of office, unconscionable distortion of our justice system, and the lifetime damage he inflicted on so many innocent children and families.

The case is US v. Oracio Corrales-Vazquez, and here’s a link to the full opinion: https://www.courtlistener.com/pdf/2019/07/24/united_states_v._oracio_corrales-Vazquez.pdf

And, of course, thanks to Tal for her continued incisive reporting on the most important issues facing America!

PWS

07-26-19

MARK JOSEPH STERN @ SLATE ON WHY JUDGE BYBEE’S 65-PAGE EVISCERATION OF TRUMP’S LAWLESS ASYLUM ORDER IS SO IMPORTANT: “The next time Trump floats a flagrantly lawless idea, then, it’s worth remembering that nativist bluster cannot transmogrify an illegitimate command into a permissible executive order. Just because the president considers ending citizenship for the children of unauthorized immigrants, for instance, does not mean he can actually get away with it. Like the INA, the Constitution grants certain rights that the president cannot unilaterally rescind—including birthright citizenship. Bybee felt no compunction to pretend that Trump’s illicit scheme has any legitimacy. Neither should the rest of us.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/bush-judge-rejects-trump-asylum-plan.html

Stern writes:

If there were any lingering doubt that Donald Trump’s latest plan to curb asylum is flatly unlawful, Judge Jay Bybee quashed it on Friday.

In a meticulous 65-page opinion, Bybee—a conservative George W. Bush appointee—explained that the president cannot rewrite a federal statute to deny asylum to immigrants who enter the country without authorization. His decision for the 9^thU.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a twofold rebuke to Trump, halting the president’s legal assault on asylum-seekers and undermining his claim that any judge who blocked the order is a Democratic hack. The reality is that anyone who understands the English language should recognize that Trump’s new rule is illegal. Like so many of Trump’s attention-grabbing proposals, this doomed policy should never have been treated as legitimate in the first place.

Friday’s ruling involves a proclamation that Trump signed on Nov. 9, ostensibly to address the “continuing and threatened mass migration of aliens with no basis for admission into the United States through our southern border.” The order alluded darkly to the caravan of asylum-seekers then approaching the border, which Trump tried and failed to exploit as a campaign issue. To remedy this “crisis” and protect “the integrity of our borders,” he directed the federal government to deny asylum to any immigrant who enters the United States unlawfully.

Ten days later, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar halted the new rule, holding that it likely exceeded the president’s authority. Trump responded by dismissing Tigar, a Barack Obama appointee, as an “Obama judge.” The comment led to a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who told the AP: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

As Trump escalated his feud with Roberts, his Department of Justice appealed Tigar’s ruling to the 9^thCircuit. It faced a seemingly propitious panel: Bybee, Judge Edward Leavy, and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz. Bybee is a very conservative jurist who authored the original “torture memo,” justifying the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation of detainees. Leavy is a staunchly conservative Reagan appointee; only Hurwitz, an Obama appointee, leans to the left. Under Trump’s partisan vision of the judiciary, the DOJ would seem to have a good shot at reviving the asylum rule.

But Bybee didn’t bite. In a crisp and rigorous opinion for the court, he wrote that Tigar was correct to conclude that the policy almost certainly violates the law. The problem, Bybee explained, is that Congress expressly provided asylum-seekers with the right that Trump now seeks to revoke: an ability to apply for asylum regardless of how they came into the country. The Immigration and Nationality Act states that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival …), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section.” This provision implements the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which the United States has ratified. It directs signatories not to “impose penalties [on refugees] on account of their illegal entry or presence.”

The plain text of the law couldn’t be clearer: Immigrants in the U.S. are eligible for asylum whether they arrived legally (through a “designated port of arrival”) or illegally. If the president wants to change that fact, he’ll have to convince Congress to break its treaty obligations and alter the law.

Obviously, the Trump administration has not persuaded Congress to overhaul asylum law. So it tried to work around the existing statute by allowing unauthorized immigrants to request asylum—then directing the government to deny their application. Bybee easily disposed of this semantical workaround. “It is the hollowest of rights,” he wrote, “that an alien must be allowed to apply for asylum regardless of whether she arrived through a port of entry if another rule makes her categorically ineligible for asylum based on precisely that fact. … The technical differences between applying for and eligibility for asylum are of no consequence to a refugee when the bottom line—no possibility of asylum—is the same.”

In light of the proclamation’s fundamental illegality, Bybee, joined by Hurwitz, affirmed Tigar’s nationwide restraining order. Leavy dissented in a curious five-page opinion insisting that the INA grants the executive branch power “to bring safety and fairness to the conditions at the southern border.” His anemic analysis is no match for Bybee’s thorough demolition of the DOJ’s illogical position. It seems quite likely that a lopsided majority of the Supreme Court will eventually agree with Bybee’s majority opinion.

It is satisfying to see a “Bush judge” (in Trumpian parlance) hand the president such a stinging legal defeat. Roberts overstated the case in totally dismissing the role of partisanship in the judiciary; of course some judges are political. But for now, a majority of the federal judiciary remains willing to stand up to the president, at least when he issues blatantly illegal orders. Judges like Roberts and Bybee may let Trump manipulate ambiguous laws to do some very bad things to immigrants. But they are not willing to let the president ignore a clear and constitutional directive from Congress.

The next time Trump floats a flagrantly lawless idea, then, it’s worth remembering that nativist bluster cannot transmogrify an illegitimate command into a permissible executive order. Just because the president considers ending citizenship for the children of unauthorized immigrants, for instance, does not mean he can actually get away with it. Like the INA, the Constitution grants certain rights that the president cannot unilaterally rescind—including birthright citizenship. Bybee felt no compunction to pretend that Trump’s illicit scheme has any legitimacy. Neither should the rest of us.

*********************************

Stern points out that contrary to Trump’s belief that he can bully, co-opt, and control the judicial system, in the way that other authoritarian fascists have done in the past, even so-called “conservative” judges have lines beyond which they won’t be pushed. And, lifetime tenure protects them from retaliation by Trump and his corrupt White Nationalist cronies.

Few things can be more important than having judges across the board, regardless of judicial philosophy, stand up to Trump and his lawless abuses of Executive Power as well as “pushing back” on a Department of Justice that has, with a few exceptions, lost its professionalism, moral compass, and courage, along with any semblance of independence.

PWS

12-10-18

SPLIT 9TH BLOCKS SCOFFLAW ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPT TO THWART ASYLUM LAWS! — Trump’s Latest White Nationalist Attack On American Institutions & Values Might Be On Life Support As Leading Conservative Judge Bybee “Just Says No!” — East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump

18-17274

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 9th Cir.,12-07-18

PANEL: LEAVY, BYBEE, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: Judge Bybee

DISSENT: Judge Leavy

KEY QUOTE FROM JUDGE BYBEE’S MAJORITY:

The Government asserts that the TRO “constitutes a major and ‘unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of foreign policy’” and “undermines the separation of powers by blocking the Executive Branch’s lawful use of its authority.” But if there is a separation-of-powers concern here, it is between the President and Congress, a boundary that we are sometimes called upon to enforce.See, e.g., Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012); INS v.

50

Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Here, the Executive has attempted an end-run around Congress. The President’s Proclamation by itself is a precatory act.14 The entry it “suspends” has long been suspended: Congress criminalized crossing the Mexican border at any place other than a port of entry over 60 years ago. See Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163-229 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1325). The Proclamation attempts to accomplish one thing. In combination with the Rule, it does indirectly what the Executive cannot do directly: amend the INA. Just as we may not, as we are often reminded, “legislate from the bench,” neither may the Executive legislate from the Oval Office.

This separation-of-powers principle hardly needs repeating. “The power of executing the laws . . . does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice,” and it is thus a “core administrative-law principle that an agency may not rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate.” Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2446 (2014). Where “Congress itself has significantly limited executive discretion by establishing a detailed scheme that the Executive must follow in [dealing with] aliens,” the Attorney General may not abandon that scheme because he thinks it is not working well—at least not in the way in which the Executive attempts to do here. Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335, 368 (2005). There surely are enforcement measures that the President and the Attorney General can take to ameliorate the crisis, but continued inaction by Congress is not a sufficient basis under our Constitution for the Executive to rewrite our immigration laws.

We are acutely aware of the crisis in the enforcement of our immigration laws. The burden of dealing with these issues has fallen disproportionately on the courts of our circuit. And as much as we might be tempted to revise the law as we think wise, revision of the laws is left with the branch that enacted the laws in the first place—Congress.

KEY QUOTE FROM JUDGE LEAVY’S DISSENT:

I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the Rule was not exempt from the standard notice-and-comment procedures. The Attorney General articulated a need to act immediately in the interests of safety of both law enforcement and aliens, and the Rule involves actions of aliens at the southern border undermining particularized determinations of the President judged as required by the national interest, relations with Mexico, and the President’s foreign policy.

I dissent from the denial of the motion to stay because the President, Attorney General, and Secretary of Homeland Security have adopted legal methods to cope with the current problems rampant at the southern border.

The question whether the Rule is consistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1158 goes to the consideration of likelihood of success on the merits. The majority errs by treating the grant or denial of eligibility for asylum as equivalent to a bar to application for asylum, and conflating these two separate statutory directives.

An alien does not obtain the right to apply for asylum because he entered

illegally. The reason “any alien” has the right to apply, according to the statute, is because he is physically present in the United States or has arrived in the United States. The parenthetical in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) (“whether or not at a designated port of arrival”),which the majority chooses to italicize, does not expand upon who is eligible to apply beyond the words of the statute, “any alien.”

The majority concludes that the Rule conditioning eligibility for asylum is the equivalent to a rule barring application for asylum. But the statute does not say that, nor does the Rule. I would stick to the words of the statute rather than discerning meaning beyond the words of the statute and Rule in order to find the action of the Attorney General and Secretary “not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

Congress placed authorization to apply for asylum in one section of the statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). Congress then placed the exceptions to the authorization to apply in another section, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2). Congress placed the eligibility for asylum in a different subsection, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1), and disqualifications for eligibility in 8 U.S.C, § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). The Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security has no authority to grant asylum to the categories of aliens enumerated in § 1158(b)(2)(A). Congress has decided that the right to apply for asylum does not assure any alien that something other than a

2

categorical denial of asylum is inevitable. Congress has instructed, by the structure and language of the statute, that there is nothing inconsistent in allowing an application for asylum and categorically denying any possibility of being granted asylum on that application. Thus, Congress has instructed that felons and terrorists have a right to apply for asylum, notwithstanding a categorical denial of eligibility.

**********************************************

Judge Leavy’s dissent seems pretty absurdist to me. There is no parallel between “felons and terrorists” and others who might enter illegally. To state the obvious, most terrorists and felons would be ineligible for “refugee status” under the U.N. Convention. Those whose only offense was illegal entry would not.

There’s a little glimmer of hope for the Administration scofflaws. They finally got a dissenting Article III Judge to bite on their bogus legal arguments for rewriting asylum law.

The bad news: The majority opinion upholding the TRO against the asylum scam was written by erstwhile conservative Judge Jay Bybee. Bybee is so far to the right that he had trouble getting confirmed because of his participation in the Bush II era torture scandals at the DOJ. He also voted in favor of the Trumpsters on the “Travel Ban” case. So, when you lose a case with a 9^thCircuit panel of two “GOP conservative” judges and only one “Democratic appointment” you know you’re in trouble (even if you subscribe to Trump’s semi-myth that judges are identified for life by the party that appointed them).

But wait, there’s more. Judge Bybee is not only a “strict constructionist,” but has also been a strong critic of Trump’s “dissing” of the integrity of Federal Judges. That puts him on exactly the same wavelength as conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. Plus, for the reasons he set forth in this opinion, those conservative Justices who are “strict constructionist defenders of separation of powers” might be reluctamnt to “bite” on the Administration’s rewrite of specific Congressional direction in asylum statutes.

Additionally, Judge Bybee pointed out that the record before Judge Tigar still needs more development. For lots of reasons, it’s looking like the Supremes might be unwilling to intervene to bail Trump out of his self-created mess at the preliminary stage.

It’s also pretty evident at this point that the “asylum crisis” is bogus; if there is any crisis it is self-created by the Trumpsters White Nationalist xenophobia. That’s going to come out in any historical analysis, thus making any Justice voting for Trump’s position look about the same as those who voted to uphold American-Japanese internment in World War II. In other words, it will be a cowardly and disgraceful legacy. While Trump is too ignorant to look at life in historical terms, Chief Justice Roberts (who holds the balance of power these days) clearly cares about how history will judge him and “his” Court.

I could be wrong, but if I were a Trumpster, I’d be concerned about the future of the racist-restrictionist immigration agenda. It’s going nowhere in Congress and at least some of the “bureaucratic end runs” are running into problems with the Article IIIs. That’s not to minimize the short and long term damage he’s doing to America with his abuse of the bureaucratic processes. Whether we can recover, remains to be seen.

PWS

12-08-18

HuffPost Politics: Trump’s Attacks on Federal Judges Continue to Draw Fire!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/blaming-judges-is-corrosive-says-a-judge-who-ruled-against-trump_us_58cbe793e4b0be71dcf40451

“HONOLULU (Reuters) – One of three federal appeals court judges who last month upheld a ruling that blocked U.S. President Donald Trump’s first try at a travel ban said on Thursday it was “corrosive to the justice system” when litigants attack judges for their decisions.

Judge Richard Clifton of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals became the latest in a series of judges to draw criticism from Trump after Clifton and two colleagues refused to reinstate an executive order temporarily barring entry by people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Shortly after the Feb. 9 ruling, Trump tweeted: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” He also told reporters that the ruling was “political.”

“It’s easy to blame the referee when you don’t like the result,” Clifton said in a speech to the Conference of Western Attorneys General, which is meeting in Honolulu.

“It is corrosive to the system when a disappointing result, or result disappointing to you, is responded to by blaming the referee,” said Clifton, who did not mention Trump by name.

. . . .

In an order issued late Wednesday related to Trump’s first travel ban challenge, a colleague of Clifton, U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, had words of his own for the invectives against members of the judiciary in these cases.

“The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues were out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse — particularly when they came from the parties,” Bybee wrote, declining to mention the president by name.

The judge, who was also appointed by Bush, added: “It does no credit to the arguments of the parties to impugn the motives or the competence of the members of this court.”

**********************************

As pointed out in my blog yesterday, Judge Bybee was actually filing a dissenting opinion supporting the President’s authority to issue “Travel Ban 1.0.” Even so, he was offended by the President’s attacks on his Federal Judicial colleagues. Never good when even those who agree with your legal position are put off by your obnoxious personal conduct. Judge Bybee also reinforced one of my points — judges at any level never appreciate comments on the merits of a case by a party.

Here’s the link to my post from yesterday:

http://wp.me/p8eeJm-uZ

PWS

03/17/17

Five Circuit Judges Dissent From 9th Circuit’s Decision Not To Vacate The Panel Decision In State of Washington v. Trump On Travel Ban 1.0!

Judge Bybee writing for the dissenters:

“Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105 (Motions Panel–February 9, 2017)
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

MAR 15 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

BYBEE, Circuit Judge, with whom KOZINSKI, CALLAHAN, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of reconsideration en banc.

I regret that we did not decide to reconsider this case en banc for the purpose of vacating the panel’s opinion. We have an obligation to correct our own errors, particularly when those errors so confound Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent that neither we nor our district courts will know what law to apply in the future.

The Executive Order of January 27, 2017, suspending the entry of certain aliens, was authorized by statute, and presidents have frequently exercised that authority through executive orders and presidential proclamations. Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order,1 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.” Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 165 (1993).

1 Our personal views are of no consequence. I note this only to emphasize that 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—and not to defend the administration’s policy.

This is not to say that presidential immigration policy concerning the entry of aliens at the border is immune from judicial review, only that our review is limited by Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)—and the panel held that limitation inapplicable. I dissent from our failure to correct the panel’s manifest error.”

Read Judge Bybee’s full dissent here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105 en banc.pdf

************************************

I had speculated at the time a Judge of the 9th Circuit requested a vote on rehearing en banc that it was part of a strategy not intended to actually force such review, but rather to give those Judges who disagreed with the 3-Judge panel a chance to publicly express dissenting views. This dissent will be published.

Nevertheless, with only five of the 29 or so active Judges on the 9th Circuit joining Judge Bybee’s dissent, the prospect for the Administration obtaining any relief there from the TRO in State of Hawaii v. Trump enjoining Travel Ban 2.0 appears dim.

Notwithstanding President Trump’s claim that he will litigate Travel Ban 2.0 to the Supreme Court, that might not be so easy, particularly for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court is not obligated to take any case just because the President wishes it. The Court has discretion.

In exercising that discretion (known as a “petition for certiorari”) the Court generally does not like to intervene at the TRO or Preliminary Injunction stage, before a full record is developed. Also, the current eight member configuration, presenting the possibility of a tie vote, makes it less likely that the Court would take the case now.

And, one of the reasons for the Court taking such a case — a split in Circuits — doesn’t exist here. The Administration has consistently lost on the issue except for a single District Court ruling from Massachusetts.

Consequently, the Administration might have to wait for a full trial on the merits of the plaintiffs’ case, a process that would take weeks at a minimum and quite possibly months or even years. Even then, there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would take the case, or that even with Justice Gorsuch on the bench the Administration’s position would prevail.

Finally, I note that much of Judge Bybee’s dissent echoes the views expressed by Nolan Rappaport in several articles from The Hill posted on this blog. The most recent of those, relating to State of Hawaii v. Trump, can be found here:

http://wp.me/p8eeJm-tV

PWS

03/16/17

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: