Court Unanimously Keeps Lower Court's Injunction Against Trump's Immigration Order In Place
from the for-now dept
Let’s start this out by being quite clear: this is still the beginning of a fairly long legal process. But, the 9th Circuit appeals court has just unanimously ruled that the lower’ court’s injunction barring Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration should remain in place. In short: the federal government remains barred from actually carrying out the order. This does not mean, as our President has wrongly suggested, that people are free to randomly enter the country in droves. They still have to go through the already thorough vetting and visa process. It just means that the blanket ban that caused so much havoc cannot be used to bar entry into the country. We were among those who signed onto an amicus brief for the wider tech industry, asking the court to rule this way, so we’re happy they did.
The court is pretty clear, and it’s somewhat surprising that the ruling was unanimous. While it’s always difficult to tell how judges are going to rule based solely on oral arguments, it certainly felt like two judges were leaning towards the states’ argument and one towards the federal government’s. But when it was time to write an opinion, all three came down on the side of the states. Not only that, but they did it per curiam, meaning that the entire panel “wrote” the opinion (rather than singling out the specific judge who wrote it). This can be seen as the three judges showing a united front, and also a pre-emption towards the likelihood of our thin skinned President picking directly on one of the three as somehow being responsible (as he did in earlier tweets about the case). Either way, the judges stood together, noting that the federal government’s argument was weak:
To rule on the Government?s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay. We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides. Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.
Again, this is far from over. There will still be a fight at the lower court over a permanent injunction, and then numerous appeals (not to mention the other cases around the country).
As for the opinion, it’s good to see that the court went as far as it did. It really could have just punted the issue on a number of grounds, including that the appeals court has no grounds to overturn a temporary restraining order. But, instead, it went further and suggested that the federal government’s position here is weak. There were a few different issues in the case, and the court wasn’t very impressed by any of the federal government’s arguments. One was that the states (Washington and Minnesota) didn’t have standing to challenge the executive order. Not so, says the court, pointing to a number of cases where state universities had standing to sue on actions related to the rights of their students:
Most relevant for our purposes, schools have been permitted to assert the rights of their students…. As in those cases, the interests of the States? universities here are aligned with their students. The students? educational success is ?inextricably bound up? in the universities? capacity to teach them…. And the universities? reputations depend on the success of their professors? research. Thus, as the operators of state universities, the States may assert not only their own rights to the extent affected by the Executive Order but may also assert the rights of their students and faculty members.
We therefore conclude that the States have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive Order. The necessary connection can be drawn in at most two logical steps: (1) the Executive Order prevents nationals of seven countries from entering Washington and Minnesota; (2) as a result, some of these people will not enter state universities, some will not join those universities as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research, and some will not be permitted to return if they leave. And we have no difficulty concluding that the States? injuries would be redressed if they could obtain the relief they ask for: a declaration that the Executive Order violates the Constitution and an injunction barring its enforcement. The Government does not argue otherwise.
On that procedural question of whether or not the court can even review a temporary restraining order (TRO), the court says it’s fine:
We are satisfied that in the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the district court?s order possesses the qualities of an appealable preliminary injunction. The parties vigorously contested the legal basis for the TRO in written briefs and oral arguments before the district court. The district court?s order has no expiration date, and no hearing has been scheduled. Although the district court has recently scheduled briefing on the States? motion for a preliminary injunction, it is apparent from the district court?s scheduling order that the TRO will remain in effect for longer than fourteen days. In light of the unusual circumstances of this case, in which the Government has argued that emergency relief is necessary to support its efforts to prevent terrorism, we believe that this period is long enough that the TRO should be considered to have the qualities of a reviewable preliminary injunction.
On the question of whether or not courts even have the authority to review this executive order, the court says of course it does and it’s patently silly for the federal government to suggest otherwise.
The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has ?unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.? The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches?an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. See, e.g., Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that ?the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government?s political departments largely immune from judicial control? (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977))); see also Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010) (explaining that courts should defer to the political branches with respect to national security and foreign relations). Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President?s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.
There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.
The court further notes that the federal government’s desire to run around screaming “NATIONAL SECURITY” as if that means the courts are powerless to do anything is also completely bogus.
Indeed, federal courts routinely review the constitutionality of?and even invalidate?actions taken by the executive to promote national security, and have done so even in times of conflict.
On to the key question of whether or not the court should lift the TRO and allow the executive order to be in effect again. The court here basically rips up the federal government and notes that it has no real argument.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the Government from depriving individuals of their ?life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.? U.S. Const. amend. V. The Government may not deprive a person of one of these protected interests without providing ?notice and an opportunity to respond,? or, in other words, the opportunity to present reasons not to proceed with the deprivation and have them considered….
The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual?s ability to travel. Indeed, the Government does not contend that the Executive Order provides for such process. Rather, in addition to the arguments addressed in other parts of this opinion, the Government argues that most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause.
And while I’ve seen a bunch of people (mainly on Twitter) telling me that there’s no due process issue because non-US citizens have no Constitutional rights, the court reminds them that they’re wrong:
The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment?s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they ?appl[y] to all ?persons? within the United States, including aliens,? regardless of ?whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.? Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982). The Government has provided no affirmative argument showing that the States? procedural due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens. For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States. See id. (?[T]he returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him.? (quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460 (1963))). Nor has the Government established that the Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry. See id. at 35 (?[T]he courts must evaluate the particular circumstances and determine what procedures would satisfy the minimum requirements of due process on the re-entry of a permanent resident alien.?).
Separately, the court notes that the federal government’s own claims are not trustworthy — specifically the rapidly-changing claims about whether or not greencard holders are covered by the exec order:
At this point, however, we cannot rely upon the Government?s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents. The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely.
Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel?s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. TheWhite House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments. Moreover, in light of the Government?s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings.
The court also rejects the argument from the DOJ that a more limited TRO could be used instead, such as one just focusing on previously admitted aliens. No go:
First, we decline to limit the scope of the TRO to lawful permanent residents and the additional category more recently suggested by the Government, in its reply memorandum, ?previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.? That limitation on its face omits aliens who are in the United States unlawfully, and those individuals have due process rights as well. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693. That would also omit claims by citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens? ability to travel to the United States…. There might be persons covered by the TRO who do not have viable due process claims, but the Government?s proposed revision leaves out at least some who do.
The court also refuses to restrict the TRO so that it doesn’t apply nationwide, basically saying the government failed to explain why it should:
Second, we decline to limit the geographic scope of the TRO. The Fifth Circuit has held that such a fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform immigration law and policy…. At this stage of the litigation, we do not need to and do not reach such a legal conclusion for ourselves, but we cannot say that the Government has established that a contrary view is likely to prevail. Moreover, even if limiting the geographic scope of the injunction would be desirable, the Government has not proposed a workable alternative formof the TRO that accounts for the nation?s multiple ports of entry and interconnected transit system and that would protect the proprietary interests of the States at issue here while nevertheless applying only within the States? borders.
The court then notes that the federal government failed to convince the court that it has any “likelihood of success” in prevailing in support of the executive order, though it’s open to changing its mind at a later date, when more fully briefed (i.e., when things come back on appeal down the road).
Finally, there’s the question of the “balance of hardships and the public interest” and again the court notes that the DOJ failed to show any evidence of real harm in blocking the executive order, because the DOJ has no actual evidence to support the reasons for the order in the first place. And, again, just screaming “NATIONAL SECURITY” is no excuse:
The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury. Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Although we agree that ?the Government?s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,? Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010), the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact. Despite the district court?s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States? argument that the district court?s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.
The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree, as explained above.
In a footnote on that, the court calls bullshit on the idea that there’s some super secret info that only the President can see that shows why this ban is necessary, noting that the federal government regularly shares confidential information with judges under seal or in camera to avoid it being seen by others.
Meanwhile, the court notes that the plaintiff states have shown pretty strong evidence of harm:
By contrast, the States have offered ample evidence that if the Executive Order were reinstated even temporarily, it would substantially injure the States and multiple ?other parties interested in the proceeding.? … When the Executive Order was in effect, the States contend that the travel prohibitions harmed the States? university employees and students, separated families, and stranded the States? residents abroad. These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms.
And, finally the court notes that the public interest simply does not warrant a stay.
Again, this is just the beginning of a long process, but as an early victory it’s a big one. The court could have punted and did not. And in the meantime, our somewhat confused President is angry and doesn’t seem to realize he’s already in court over this (and losing, badly):
SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017
Of course, if that were true, it would help to have the federal government actually lay out some evidence to support that. What the 9th circuit pretty clearly said here is “we’ve seen none whatsoever.”