“Washington (CNN)In the first court victory for the Trump administration, a federal judge in Boston declined Friday to renew a temporary restraining order that prohibited the detention or removal of foreign travelers legally authorized to come to the US.
The win in court comes at the same time that the administration issued a clarification to its travel order allowing for some citizens from the seven banned countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — to enter the US under specific circumstances.
The original temporary restraining order, issued by US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs and US Magistrate Judge Judith Dein, was put in place early Sunday morning and was set to expire on February 5.
But a different federal judge, US District Court Judge Nathaniel Gordon, ruled Friday that the claims brought by legal permanent residents are now moot given the White House counsel’s recent clarification that the travel ban order does not apply such individuals.”
******************************
Read the full story at the link. Check the internet for updates and additional analysis as it becomes available.
PWS
02/03/17
Schmidt:
Thanks for the clarification, Tom.
If there were easy answers, a case wouldn’t be at the Supreme Court for resolution. The Supremes have discretion as to which cases they review. They basically only take “cases of first impression” (e.g., Bush v. Gore) or cases where the lower courts have split (that’s how most immigration matters that reach the Court get there).
Having been on an administrative appellate court for 8 years, and doing many thousands of cases, I think everyone on our court was trying to reach the best result under the law; however, we often had differing views as to what it was. Usually, on the most difficult matters you could provide plausible legal explanations for several different outcomes.
That’s why dissent is important. I was often in the minority on the most important precedent cases. But, over time, Federal Courts and even the Supremes have agreed with many of the things we dissenters were saying.
Differences of opinion are how the law, and indeed civilization, moves forward. And one of the worst things about the Trump Presidency so far is his intolerance for criticism and dissent.
By contrast, being a judge at any level of the system, even a lowly Immigration Judge like I was, means having some people unhappy with some decisions you made almost all the time. It’s part of the job.
When I was BIA Chair, I got pummeled by the majority of my colleagues almost every Tuesday at en banc on issues that were very fundamental to me. But, I always tried to treat all of my colleagues with kindness and respect, regardless of whether I could persuade them on the law.
In the end, it didn’t save my job once Ashcroft & Co showed up. But I did achieve some things and help the law move in the right direction by “just saying no” to my colleagues when I thought they were wrong.
So, bottom line is that differing opinions on a collegial court are a good thing, not a bad thing. It’s the “rooms full of folks all agreeing with each other” that are likely to get everyone in trouble.
Best,
P
Felhofer:
I guess I haven’t clearly explained my point. Every President creates controversial policy if they deem it necessary. It’s their right and duty. And they all will push the envelope as far as they can. They’re politicians, for crying out loud! It’s up to the judiciary to keep them honest (checks and balance)–but the circus that’s coming out of the judiciary is quite disappointing. Look, for example, at the Supreme Court. These supposedly are the most highly respected legal minds in the country, regardless of which president appointed them. Yet why are there so many 5-4 decisions? Wouldn’t you think the score would be 9-0 pretty much always if the law was the only thing affecting their vote? We all expect our politicians to moisten their fingers and raise them into the air. But not the judiciary. It’s not up to them to rule if a policy is poorly devised, or beneficial or detrimental. It’s up to them to determine if it’s constitutional or unconstitutional. But put nine judges in a room and no more than five will go one way or the other on that issue. “Joke” word belongs to them? Yeah.
Tom
Schmidt:
There is a joke here, Tom. But it certainly isn’t the Judiciary. It’s our President and his advisors and their unnecessary and poorly devised and drafted policies. Judge Robart who entered the nationwide TRO happens to be a Bush II appointee. And, as I pointed out, Judge Brinkema is one of the most highly respected US District Judges who has handled many high profile cases, including terrorist and national security prosecutions. I have a lot more confidence in her knowledge of constitutional law than I do in Bannon’s, Miller’s, or Trump’s. But, still don’t know how it will finally come out. The party that gets the TRO usually, but not always, prevails. And then there are the appellate courts and the Supremes. Still, there was no reason for the policy in the first place. And, it is not making us safer — just unnecessarily dividing the country and giving our enemies more tools to use against us.
Cheers,
P
Felhofer:
Win for Trump, win for Obama, win for NY Times, win for Fox. Disgusting. There’s no law. Just liberal law and conservative law. Integrity among the judicial? Impartial judges? Seems they no longer exist. Can no two judges agree on the legality of an executive order? Seems to me, it should be black and white. Are there any law schools that teach non-partisan constitutional law anymore? If so, you wouldn’t know it. The judicial circus continues. The people that used to be revered have turned themselves into laughing stock. Going into a courtroom, regardless of your story, is like throwing the dice. Catch them on a bad cynical day, like I’m having now, and God knows what they’d rule. The performance of the judiciary regarding these executive orders is a joke. And a bad one at that. No wonder mainstream America wants the federal government to dry up and blow away.
Tom