documentation of stay of Trump's immigration order

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

old lady new shooter

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
30,760
In response to Frank's request for documentation of what actually happened, here is a link to the text of Judge Robart's order:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3446391-Robart-Order.html

Being that the Wall Street Journal is generally a reliable source, here is a link to its article on the situation:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/legal-...on-order-turns-to-visa-revocations-1486153216

It reports that
On Saturday, the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal to the Seattle court’s ruling.
Click to expand...

And to address the question of the person who started the other thread which is now closed,
District judges don’t often issue nationwide injunctions, but they have happened in recent years in high-profile cases.
Click to expand...
, which however does not answer the specific legal question as to how this is possible.

I hope this is enough information to form a basis for further discussion.
 
I didn't catch the other thread... was it closed pending further research, or because it didn't involve guns? (or did it?)

EDIT: Never mind... found it... will be interesting to see how it plays out (both the order's status, and this thread.)
 
The other thread spoke about state judges. The poster was apparently confused. This has to do with a Temporary Restraining Order issued in response to a civil suit filed by several states in US District Court. Personally, I don't think we have to spend any more time on it, but we'll let Frank weigh in on that.

By the way, people who do not subscribe to WSJ may not open links to wsj.com.
 
In the closed thread the OP there asked:
bk42261 said:
....How can one State judge decree what the Federal rules are in other states?
Click to expand...

If this is the case the OP there has in mind, the first part of the answer is that it wasn't a state judge. The ruling was made by a federal judge in a case filed in federal court (specifically the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington). As to how he can apply his ruling nationally, his reasoning is set out in the order old lady new shooter linked to in her OP here. And since the Administration apparently intends to appeal, we'll see in due course whether Judge Robart's reasoning stands up to appellate court scrutiny.

Also, this really isn't gun related, so I probably should just close it. But I'll leave it open for now to see if anyone can contribute some real understanding of the legal issues presented. If nothing else, this illustrates that Executive Orders are not immune from judicial oversight.
 
Kleanbore said:
By the way, people who do not subscribe to WSJ may not open links to wsj.com.
Click to expand...
My apologies. I got to the link by googling the case and was able to read the article so I thought it was not behind the paywall. I just tried using the link I posted above and like you could only see the first few sentences. My google search was "text of Judge Robart's order", I just tried the search again and the WSJ article is the second actual article listed. The link there reads
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...rTIn-2aav_nQV783G1Ju2g&bvm=bv.146094739,d.cGw

Hope that helps. :)
 
Just as a reminder, if we're discussing this it is purely as a means to help our members better understand the fnction and authorities of the federal courts, in that those actions and authorities affect gun rights cases that go through the federal courts.

Nothing here should be considered to be authorizing debate or discussion of the issues underlying the matter at the heart of the case in dispute at the moment.
 
Thanks for keeping this open for awhile. I'm interested in the process. It can be a civics lesson if nothing else regarding executive orders. We don't see this kind of judicial action very often and it's a very good example of the power of the courts. I live in WA and we are all dealing with anti-gun legislation right now that is being promoted by Bob Ferguson. This is sure to make him the next democratic Governor of WA state and may well give him enough political clout to get a ban on AR's pushed thru our legislature. He came out of left field with this suit and used some big tech companies here to support his action.
 
Last edited:
Lets recap:

Trump makes the travel restrictions.

WA State challenges it in Fed court - WA asks and gets a TRO (temporary restraining order) of the travel restriction until the case is heard.

Trump asks for an emergency request to continue travel restrictions until full case is heard. - And is denied request.

Trump is likely to push issue; potentially to SCOTUS.

Ultimately some Judge rules one way or the other.



If I understand correctly, WA is making this a States rights issues in a round about way.

From the docs provided above. (Note, it looks like MInn. joined WA in the docs)

Specifically, for purposes of the entry of this TRO, the court finds that the States
have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as
a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
adversely affects the States residents in areas of employment, education, business,
family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of their
roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders. In addition, the
States themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the
Executive Order has in?icted upon the operations and missions of their public
universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States"
operations, tax bases, and public funds. These harms are signi?cant and ongoing.
Click to expand...



Mods:
If we cant discuss details of this case beyond what appears to be a States Rights vs the Feds, what can we discuss beyond what I outline above?
.
 
danez71 said:
.....Mods:
If we cant discuss details of this case beyond what appears to be a States Rights vs the Feds, what can we discuss beyond what I outline above?
Click to expand...

Not a lot, but this gives some insight into the procedure. For example, Robart's order gives us information about the standards for a court to issue a TRO. Overall this is a possibly useful look at the process by which a controversial executive order is challenged.
 
danez71 said:
If we cant discuss details of this case beyond what appears to be a States Rights vs the Feds, what can we discuss beyond what I outline above?
Click to expand...
This really has little or nothing to do with state rights vs feds. It concerns a Federal case involving civil damages (and yes, some citizens would most certainly be damaged) in the context of equity.

The states happen to be the plaintiffs. They sued on behalf of their citizens. The Federal Government is the defendant--the plaintiffs have asserted that the actions of the defendant will result in damages.

The ultimate question posed by this suit is one of whether the obvious damages that would result from the enforcement of the Executive Order would outweigh the damages that would result if the Order is not allowed.

The overall issue is more complicated than this civil case. There are parts of a law that would seem to bar the Government order. There are parts of other laws that certainly permit it.

The Executive Order imposed restrictions analogous to those imposed by Roosevelt, Truman, Carter, and Obama.
 
Frank Ettin said:
Not a lot, but this gives some insight into the procedure. For example, Robart's order gives us information about the standards for a court to issue a TRO. Overall this is a possibly useful look at the process by which a controversial executive order is challenged.
Click to expand...

Thank you Frank. I did find the TRO info interesting as its never been something Ive read about in this type of scenario.



Kleanbore said:
This really has little or nothing to do with state rights vs feds. It concerns a Federal case involving civil damages (and yes, some citizens would most certainly be damaged) in the context of equity.

The states happen to be the plaintiffs. They sued on behalf of their citizens. The Federal Government is the defendant--the plaintiffs have asserted that the actions of the defendant will result in damages.

The ultimate question posed by this suit is one of whether the obvious damages that would result from the enforcement of the Executive Order would outweigh the damages that would result if the Order is not allowed.

The overall issue is more complicated than this civil case. There are parts of a law that would seem to bar the Government order. There are parts of other laws that certainly permit it.


The Executive Order imposed restrictions analogous to those imposed by Roosevelt, Truman, Carter, and Obama.
Click to expand...


Maybe this can be explained better as this isn't quite how I see it based in the following.


Specifically, for purposes of the entry of this TRO, the court finds that the States
have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as
a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
adversely affects the States residents in areas of employment, education, business,
family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of their
roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders.
Click to expand...


I'm reading that as the State is suing, rather than individual residents of the state suing, using the parens patriae as the 'basis' (for lack of a better word)for the State taking the lead role rather than leaving it up to individual or group of residents to sue Trump/Fed.

I'm interpreting that as the State is saying, in a round about way, 'We're suing on behalf of the resident as it is the States Right to protect its residents' from harm "in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel" as a result of the EO .
 
danez71 said:
I did find the TRO info interesting as its never been something I've read about in this type of scenario.
Click to expand...

In the Moderator's spirit of understanding procedural process:
Any interested party can challenge a legally-based action, whether based on a law, government regulation, government official's order, or court order. The challenge to the action starts in a relevant court, either state or federal, depending on the basis for the challenged action.
The court hearing the challenge can take several actions. The court can determine that the challenger has no standing in the situation, and reject the challenge outright. The court can accept the challenge and schedule hearings to allow both sides to argue, leading eventually to either denying the challenge or issuing a permanent restraining order. If the challenger presents compelling evidence that the challenged action is is causing immediate harm, then the court may issue a temporary restraining order to stop the action while both sides have time to prepare for the hearing.
In each of the above situations, the court involved is the court of first resort. With one exception, it is never the court of last resort. That means that, other than the one exception, either side can appeal the ruling (even the rejection of standing) to an appropriate court of appeals. The one exception is when the first court to accept the challenge is the Supreme Court of the U.S. That court is definitively the court of last resort. Since I am not a lawyer, the only case I can recall is the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 to decide the results of the election that year.
In the case under discussion, the Administration sought from the appeals court a stay of execution of the TRO. A stay would have resulted in the travel ban remaining in place while the court prepared for the hearing on the legality of the executive order itself. Presumably the appeals court determined that even if the EO is valid, there is not sufficient immediacy to let it go forward while waiting for the hearing and ruling (and likely appeals).

Confusing, eh?
 
I understood the concept but thanks for the added details.

ETA to my post above, since we arent to discuss the details of this case, I was addressing the issue of why the State is suing; of which my understanding is because the primary reason listed in the document is that they have States Rights to protect their residents and secondarily that the State is being financially harmed, and listed taxes as being part of that.
 
Kleanbore said:
Not "rights", but a governmental responsibility.
Click to expand...


In this scenario, what's the difference that you're trying to make the distinction of the two?

Does the State have the responsibility to do so but not the right to do so?


I tend to think the must have to the right to do so otherwise the court wouldn't have heard their case for the TRO in the 1st place.
 
danez71 said:
So they must have the right to do so then, correct?
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, but the use of the term "States Rights" would imply that this is about states rights--which it is not.

That does raise the question about whether the rights of citizens to travel and to employ certain other citizens, etc. outweigh the rights of citizens to be safe from immigrants who have been indoctrinated since early childhood to burn, blow up, and behead.

Tat's what it boils down to, and the makeup of the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS make that a dangerous proposition.
 
Yeah... I probably shouldnt have used that 'States Rights' term for this context.

I meant it as the State suing instead of residents suing because the State has the right to, and the moral, legal, or both, responsibility to do for XYZ reasons.

XYZ reasons for this case being something we aren't to talk about. But I'll say that I agree with you regarding the 9th.
 
Not being a lawyer, this is probably clear to those who are, but I don't understand why a federal district judge in Washington State has jurisdiction over the entire United States. It would seem to me that at best, the judge's ruling would only be in effect for travelers to Seattle's SEATAC airport and any other ports within the judge's district.

It was my understanding that for issues regarding federal regulations or other federal rulings that have nationwide effect, the proper venue was the federal district court for the District of Columbia.

Also, why does one judge's temporary restraining order stand for the entire country, while another federal district judge in Boston refused to issue a similar ruling? There are two differing rulings in different parts of the country, yet one takes precedence over the other.

In theory, couldn't someone take a similar case to every federal district in the country until they received the ruling they desired, and no matter how many previous rulings went against them, the one they wanted is the only one that counts?

Sorry for the uneducated questions.
 
F-111 John said:
Not being a lawyer, this is probably clear to those who are, but I don't understand why a federal district judge in Washington State has jurisdiction over the entire United States. It would seem to me that at best, the judge's ruling would only be in effect for travelers to Seattle's SEATAC airport and any other ports within the judge's district.

It was my understanding that for issues regarding federal regulations or other federal rulings that have nationwide effect, the proper venue was the federal district court for the District of Columbia.

Also, why does one judge's temporary restraining order stand for the entire country, while another federal district judge in Boston refused to issue a similar ruling? There are two differing rulings in different parts of the country, yet one takes precedence over the other.

In theory, couldn't someone take a similar case to every federal district in the country until they received the ruling they desired, and no matter how many previous rulings went against them, the one they wanted is the only one that counts?

Sorry for the uneducated questions.
Click to expand...



Pages 5 and 6 address some of your questions. (sorry for the formatting quirks. I using the above link and clicking on the 'Text' tab and this is how it formatting on their site)

Although Federal Defendants argued that any
should be limited to the States at issue (see Resp. at 30), the resulting
partial implementation of the Executive Order ?would undermine the
constitutional imperative of ?a uniform Rule of Naturalization? and Congress?s
instruction that ?the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced
vigorously and um?formly.?? Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 155 (5th
Cir. 2015) (footnotes omitted) (quoting U.S. CONST. art. I, cl. 4
(emphasis added) and Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986, Pub. L.
No. 99-603, 115(1), 100 Stat. 3359, 33-84 (emphasis added?.1
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top